• 1 See also Simon Groth, Mediävistische Wissenschaftsgeschichte. Eine Bestandsaufnahme. De Gruyter. do (...)

1The study of GDR historiography cannot simply be limited to examining the relation between science and politics as ideologically based, or to questioning its scientific standing. The subject of medieval history chosen here constitutes a good starting point for a more thorough analysis. Feudalism as a “meta-level for the Middle Ages”1 became a comprehensive scientific concept in the GDR, with an ideological underpinning, as well as an explanatory and worldview model for the GDR society. But how did this ultimately affect the concrete level, the historian, and his work? This question will be examined using a concrete example, that of medieval historians at the Humboldt University of Berlin between 1949 and 1989.

• 2 Jan Assmann, Das kulturelle Gedächtnis. Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen Hoch (...)

2Feudalism as the axis of a Marxist based historiography was far more a conception of the Middle Ages from the standpoint of the GDR authorities than a historiographic classification based on research analysis. The GDR roots itself and its traditions back to feudalism and acquires both its legitimacy and its historical authenticity through it. Feudalism remained the key parameter in defining socialist traditions as well as in fostering national identity and collective memory.2 However, topics such as the history of the church, the history of the papacy or the Protestant Reformation movements did not vanish from the medieval studies, which – as it will be further discussed – are more contingent upon the concrete historian and his research interests.

• 3 See Simon Groth, Mediävistische Wissenschaftsgeschichte, op. cit., doi: 10.1515/fmst-2022-0011, p.  (...)
• 4 Ibid. p. 328.
• 5 “Medieval history of science means the history of medieval studies as a science of/about the Middle (...)

3There is no longer a ’Middle Ages’ but a variety of patterns or images that are not necessarily overlooking the scientific nature of the subject.3 Compared to previous academic methods and standards, Feudalism is not about investigating medieval sources but about creating sources according to objective conditions.4 The representations of the Middle Ages are discussed in the last chapter of the present article. It is intended to present a short history of medieval studies (at the Humboldt University) and to envisage it as a science.5 The paper ambitions to widen the perspective on the historiography of the GDR.

• 6 The university was officially named “Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität” but often known by its abbrevi (...)
• 7 See Anne Christine Nagel, Im Schatten des Dritten Reiches. Mittelalterforschung in der Bundesrepubl (...)
• 8 Susanne König, Leben in außergewöhnlichen Zeiten. Die Mittelalterliche Forschung und ihre Vertreter (...)
• 9 See Susanne König, Die Mittelalterhistoriker an der Berliner Universität bis 1945, p. 36-44.

4Medieval history was one of the traditional academic departments at the University of Berlin6, internationally renowned for its research and teaching of different aspects of the discipline, as well as of historical auxiliary sciences. A first chair for the history of the Middle Ages was established in 1872. Historians such as Paul Scheffer-Boichorst (1843-1902), Dietrich Schäfer (1845-1929), Albert Brackmann (1871-1952) and Erich Caspar (1879-1935) represented the newly-founded Historical Seminar. The Historical Auxiliary Sciences, founded in 1862, were associated with the names of Wilhelm Wattenbach (1819-1897), Harry Breslau (1848-1926), later Michael Tangl (1861-1921) and Ernst Perels (1882-1945). After the National Socialist takeover in 1933, the Jewish historian Ernst Perels was forced to give up his Berlin chair in 1935. Perels worked part-time on editions at the Monumenta Germaniae Historicae (MGH), but was arrested in autumn 1944 and deported to Buchenwald, where he died in 1945.7 A second chair for the Middle Ages was established in 1929, to which Robert Holtzmann (1873-1946) was appointed. Due to political considerations, Robert Holtzmann was pressured by the NS-authorities to emeritus status immediately upon reaching retirement age in 1939.8 Fritz Rörig (1882-1952) replaced Professor Erich Casper as a full professor of medieval and modern history, as well as of Auxiliary Historical Sciences at the University of Berlin in 1935, and was equally appointed Director of the Historical Seminar of the University of Berlin. Rörigs’ main interests included constitutional, economic and social history of the Middle Ages, which also have a long tradition at the Berlin University. His particular area of expertise was Hanseatic-Northern European history (“The Hanse”). In 1939, Eugen Meyer (1893-1972) was called to the vacant chair of historical auxiliary sciences at Berlin University as a regular associate professor and was appointed Director of the Department of History. Overall, most professors of medieval history and historical auxiliary sciences at the Berlin University remained in their positions during the National Socialism period, from 1933 to 1945.9

• 10 Mario Kessler, Die Geschichtswissenschaft nach 1945, in Ulrich Pfeil (Hg.), Die Rückkehr der deutsc (...)
• 11 Rüdiger vom Bruch, Brigitte Kaderas, (Hgg.), Wissenschaften und Wissenschaftspolitik. Bestands­aufn (...)
• 12 See Joachim Lojewski/Henny Maskolat, Studien zur Hochschulpolitik der SED. Über einige Probleme des (...)
• 13 Wolfgang Benz, Deutschland unter alliierter Besatzung 1945-1949, in Wolfgang Benz/Michael F. Scholz(...)
• 14 Mario Kessler, Die Geschichtswissenschaft nach 1945, p. 267-285.

5Personnel continuities in all branches of society after 1945 was a general phenomenon in post-war Germany, comprising the Western Zones occupied by the West Alliance Forces as well as the Eastern Soviet Occupied Zone (SBZ).10 Continuity was also instrumental in the resumption of the educational system and academic formation throughout Germany.11 As early as the winter semester of 1945/46, many German universities were able to resume teaching. In the Soviet Occupation Zone, the Friedrich Schiller University in Jena was the first to reopen on the tenth of October 1945, followed by the University of Berlin, former Frederic Wilhelm University, which reopened its doors as the Humboldt University on the 29^th of January 1946.12 In May 1949, the Federal Republic of Germany was found in the Western Part of Germany, while the East German Part (SBZ) became the German Democratic Republic (GDR) in October 1949. The Soviet Military authorities, in need of expertise and forces, welcomed all persons that could be helpful in restoring teaching facilities and programs at the East German universities. Persons with former National Socialist Democratic Worker Party (NSDAP) membership were not automatically rejected due to a pragmatic approach: Denazification had already been revoked by order of the Soviet military government in the SBZ in spring 1948.13 Former teachers and professors with NS entanglements were welcomed as well as of bourgeois extraction, since their professional expertise was urgently needed to ensure the functionality of the educational system. In addition, re-emigrants had a decisive influence in the reconstruction of the teaching and research institutions in the GDR.14 Alfred Meusel (1896-1960), Karl Obermann (1905-1987) and Heinz Kamnitzer (1917-2001), among other historians, returned from exile after 1945. The Marxist-Leninist historian Meusel, who returned from London in 1946, became full professor at the Institute for New History at the Humboldt University in 1947. In search of adequate historians, Meusel campaigned for the “bourgeois” medievalists Eugen Meyer (1893-1972), previously professor at Berlin University, and Albrecht Timm (1915-1980), previously assistant at Berlin University. Both became part of the department of medieval studies at the Humboldt University in the beginning of the 1950s.

• 15 SED is the “Socialist Union Party of Germany” (Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands) (ed.)
• 16 KPD is the Communist Party of Germany (Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands). The SPD is the Social D (...)
• 17 The transformation of the area of historiography was pushed forward in 1955. See „Die Verbesserung (...)
• 18 Ralph Jessen, Akademische Elite und Kommunistische Diktatur. Die Ostdeutsche Hochschullehrerschaft (...)
• 19 The term “bourgeois” refers to the social composition of the professors and students in German univ (...)

6While the academic realm was marked by personnel consistencies during the first half of the 1950, the political orientation was rapidly changing. In 1946, in the SBZ, the SED15 emerged as a new party, a result of the forced unification of the SPD and the KPD.16 Backed and orchestrated by the Soviet Union, it would play a central role in the East-German politics, science and society. During the 1950, the SED policies and regulations in the sphere of higher education stipulated the transformation of the academic sector in the GDR.17 This process had two major directions: the transformation of the academic structures, autonomy and habits following the socialist model, and the creation of new elite, the so-called socialist intelligentsia¹⁸. Peasants and workers were officially called to compose this new elite of the East German universities, and thus to eliminate the bourgeois middle-class intelligentsia largely originating from the higher social strata of German society. The latter represented for the SED the “bourgeois educational privilege” and were dominating the academic field, with a habitus and recruiting patterns meant to engender social distinctions and elite consciousness.19

• 20 See Ralph Jessen, Akademische Elite, p. 372.
• 21 Frithjof Sielaff had two students that were persecuted and put in prison. He had the courage to mai (...)
• 22 Ralf Possokel, Der Selbstwiderspruch der DDR-Historiker als analytisches Problem. Befunde einer Dis (...)
• 23 John Conelly, Zur „Republikflucht“ von DDR-Wissenschaftlern in den fünfziger Jahren, Zeitschrift fü (...)

7The transformation of the East German universities started during the 1950s through the introduction of the materialistic Weltanschauung in academic research and teaching, and the formation of Marxist trained personnel, hitherto non-existent, destined to replace non-Marxist staff that helped in restoring the academic activities. Particularly, history and historical science were classified by the SED as “bourgeois” science, and as a strong­hold of “bourgeois” values. Apparently, the term “bourgeois” turned into a concept and negative category comprising everything that is contrary to values of Marxist-Leninist communism and to its model of society. In accordance, the term “imperialistic” was used to label science and research stemming from West Germany. Overall, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Western Allies were labelled as the imperialistic enemies of the GDR and of its ally, the Soviet Union.20 In the beginning of the 1950s, bourgeois or non-Marxist teachers and professors were still employed in schools and universities, but pressure on non-Marxist historians to conform to the new outlines was rising in the mid-1950s. The atmosphere at the Humboldt University turned more and more hostile in the late 1950s against historians accused of being “bourgeois” or “imperialist”, which was the case with Willy Flach.21 Most “bourgeois” historians left the GDR, but some remained and adjusted to the circumstances, such as Frithjof Sielaff or Heinrich Sproemberg. Historians in the GDR did not form a homogenous group, but consisted of a multi-faceted array of individuals.22 Many academics left or fled the GDR towards West-Germany during this decade until 1961, when the Berlin Wall marked the end of professional and scientific transfers in Germany.23 By 1958, the conversion to a Marxist oriented historiography was yet in progress in the field of medieval history at the Humboldt University. In this respect, the year 1961 was not the onset, but the completion of a transformation process initiated long before.

• 24 Johan Östling, Humboldt and the Modern German University: An Intellectual History, Lund UP, 2018, p (...)
• 25 Ibid., p. 9, 12.
• 26 See „Die Verbesserung der Forschung und Lehre in der Geschichtswissenschaft der Deutschen Demokrati (...)
• 27 Mario Kessler, Die Geschichtswissenschaft nach 1945, p. 267-285.

8In the decade preceding the First World War, science and scholarship, the concept of education, pedagogics and historiography became essential components of the cultural identity of the new German nation.24 In this atmosphere, Wilhelm von Humboldt’s ideas, such as the unity of science and scholarship or academic freedom, gained sway.25 Scientific traditions were fundamentally challenged by the rising materialistic outlook applied to all aspects of reality and society. The introduction of Marxism-Leninism into science had profound consequences for the academic formation and the educational system, for the social composition of the academic personnel and students, as well as for research and teaching in the GDR.26 The new concept of history was based on materialistic historiography, with Marxism-Leninism as the scientific resource and historical materialism as the standard method for scientific pursuit, which represented a radical departure from the previous tradition of conducting science. The academic system was remodelled and transformed, as was the whole higher educational system. The Humboldt University was intended to be transformed into a model of a socialist university.27

• 28 Examples: Wilhelm Wattenbach (1819-1897), Harry Breslau (1848-1926), Michael Tangl (1861-1921), Ern (...)
• 29 See Beschluss der II. Parteikonferenz der SED. Dietz Verlag, Berlin, 1952.

9Medieval history studies had a long celebrated history in Berlin, and they yielded international fame and important “bourgeois” historians28. The profound transformation from a “bourgeois” into a “Marxist medieval historiography” was set in motion around 1952/53 with the formation of a new generation of Marxist historians. The transformation was marked by a shift in research fields, methods and teaching subjects. (Colon) Feudalism as a new concept for interpreting the Middle Ages was officially introduced to the academic curriculum of medieval history studies in the early 1950s.29 As an integral part of the basic study program, it was a mandatory subject for all students in history at an East-German university until 1989.

• 30 University Archive of Humboldt University, Phil. Faculty 1958-1967, Nr. 112, Working Program from 1 (...)

10Henceforward, feudalism became a leitmotif in East German historiography defining history as the development of human society lawfully determined by economic processes.30 Furthermore, feudalism was a necessary condition for the East German political system, and part of its ideological-scientific foundation. The amalgamation of historicity and social construction, interpretation and ideological conditioning is what makes medieval studies in the GDR such a remarkable instance of conflation between science and ideology. The concept of feudalism is not merely applied to an historical epoch but is intended as a meta-concept to shape a specific view on the course of history and scientific instruments. Feudalism research is based on the interpretation of selected historical sources and the classics of Marxism-Leninism. Did it really play a role in the concrete scientific work of historians? Was scientific research on medieval topics necessarily ideologically deformed? The case of the two historians discussed below is meant to shed light on these questions.

• 31 Rector Friedrich, Briefing from 27.04.1950, in University Archive of Humboldt University, Phil. Fac (...)
• 32 University Archive of Humboldt University, Phil. Faculty 1937-1950, Nr. 45, Letter from 23.3.1950 a (...)
• 33 Marie-Luise Bott, Die Haltung der Berliner Universität im Nationalsozialismus – Max Vasmers Rücksch (...)
• 34 Michael Parak, Hochschule und Wissenschaft in zwei deutschen Diktaturen. Elitenaustausch an sächsis (...)
• 35 Call of the Central Committee of Socialist Unity Party of Germany on the Karl Marx Year in 1953, Ze (...)
• 36 Johan Östling, Humboldt and the Modern German University: An Intellectual History. Lund UP, p. 9, 1 (...)
• 37 Susanne König, “The Model of the socialist university”, p. 170 -176.
• 38 Andreas Malycha, Die Akademie der Pädagogischen Wissenschaften der DDR 1970-1990. Zur Geschichte ei (...)

11The radical change was accompanied by structural changes. The renowned Historical Seminar, founded at the Berliner University back in 1885, was replaced by a newly established Historical Institute at the Humboldt-University, an initiative of the Dean Alfred Meusel endorsed by the Ministerium für Volksbildung (Ministry of Education of the People) in 1950.31 This new structured Institute was composed of the former Historical Seminar, the Institute of Contemporary History and the East-European Seminar. In 1950, Professor Fritz Rörig became the new director of the seminar for medieval history and historical auxiliary sciences at the Historical Institute.32 Restructuring was not a new strategy to implement state control over the academic system. During the 12-year period of National Socialism, the Berliner University underwent an alteration of its autonomous administration organs and nomination policies, as well as the severe persecution of the academic elites of Jewish descent. The NS state sought state control over research and teaching by changing the existing structures, replacing the academic elites and controlling the nomination policies at the university.33 Fuelled by ideologically founded policies, the process of gaining radical control over the academic sector continued in the newly founded German Democratic Republic (GDR).34 In 1953, Marxism-Leninism was proclaimed as the only Weltanschauung – valid for all the sectors of society and as the fundamental reference for a scientific work.35 Applied to the academic sector, this process entailed the transformation of the academic traditions and elites. The materialistic conception underlying the new idea of science prompted the deconstruction of the “classic” academic tradition dating back to the 19^th century. It challenged both the Humboldtian ideal of unity between science and scholarship and the academic freedom36. The new model of the socialist university was particularly reinforced in 1966 with the splitting of teaching and research between different institutions.37 The universities were supposed to offer teaching and professional training with practical relevance, but not research. They were transformed into socialist Kader factories supplying society with available Kader, that is politically trained personnel representing the new intellectual elite in the GDR, the so-called “worker and peasant elite”. In constrast, the Academy of Sciences and its institutes (as the successor of the Prussian Academy of Science) became the central institutes for research in the GDR.38

• 39 Eckhard Müller-Mertens confirmed Töpfer‘s outstanding reputation in teaching and research. Bernhard (...)
• 40 Bernhard Töpfer, „Zum 60. Jahre“, Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft, 34, 1986, p. 444-445; Lot (...)
• 41 Bernhard Töpfer, Die Wertung der weltlich-staatlichen Ordnung durch die Reformatoren des späten Mit (...)
• 42 Ibid., p. 23.
• 43 Ibid., p. 23.

12In the first half of the 1950s a new generation of Marxist trained historians entered university life. Bernhard Töpfer (1926-2012) and Eckhard Müller-Mertens (1923-2015) started their academic career in medieval history at the Humboldt University. The former became an important representative of his research field in the GDR and, although he never signed in as a member of the political party SED, he was officially promoted as an important “representative of the Marxist oriented medieval historiography”39. Bernhard Töpfer enjoyed national and international recognition for his outstanding scientific expertise.40 From the beginning, peace was a basic theme in his works – he was called a “peace and conflict researcher”41. The constitution of the European Nations, freedom and bondage, peace and strife were other topics.42 Töpfer taught at the Humboldt-University until 1991. For his broad and distinctive work, he received recognition in 2004 to mark his Golden Jubilee of his Dissertation.43 He died in Berlin in 2012.

• 44 A personal reflexion in his biography: Eckhard Müller-Mertens, Existenz zwischen den Fronten. Analy (...)
• 45 Prof. Dr. Heinrich Sproemberg was the “non-Marxist” reference for the training of young Marxists un (...)
• 46 Marie-Luise Bott, Die Haltung der Berliner Universität im Nationalsozialismus, Sheet 8.

13Eckhard Müller-Mertens grew up in a communist family and became a member of the SED in the 1950s. His research fields comprised, for instance, the political formation of the Reich (Empire), the imperial Idea, the biographies of the emperors and regional history. Müller-Mertens taught until 1989 at the Humboldt University, and received recognition for his academic work. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, he surprised his academic colleagues by stating that he had been distancing himself from the communist idea and the East German socialist system for many years.44 An interesting twist of history: While Bernhard Töpfer, the historian without SED-Membership, turned into the officially acclaimed representative of Marxist medieval history, Eckhard Müller-Mertens, educated in a communist household, distanced himself from Marxism and quit his SED-Membership in 1989. Both historians dealt with the subject of Feudalism as part of their wider range of research fields and teaching liabilities because it was officially demanded. Despite that, Bernhard Töpfer and Eckhard Müller-Mertens were able to pursue their individual research interests and scientific methods (critical analysis of resources, use of international literature etc.) throughout their scientific activity. A second interesting twist of history: these two young historians representing the new generation of Marxist medievalists at the Humboldt University of Berlin were trained by bourgeois professors, such as Fritz Rörig (1882-1952), in Berlin, and Heinrich Sproemberg (1889-1966), in Leipzig.45 Although Fritz Rörig had never been a member of the National Socialist Worker Party (NSDAP), his role and attitude towards the NS ideology remained ambivalent. His colleague Max Vasmer exposed Fritz Rörig as a scientist with adherence to the national-socialist Weltanschauung.46 Rörig resumed his position as professor at the Humboldt University in 1946, with the approval of the soviet military administration. He continued to be a professor of medieval history and “Hanse” in the GDR until his death in 1952. He became the academic trainer of the young Bernhard Töpfer and Eckhard Müller-Mertens, then students in medieval history at the University of Berlin.

• 47 Iris Berndt, Gerd Heinrich und Peter Neumeister (Hgg.), Frithjof Sielaff. Das frühe und hohe Mittel (...)
• 48 Andreas Dorpalen, German History in Marxist Perspective. The East German Approach, Detroit, Wayne S (...)

14A third historian, Frithjof Sielaff (1918-1996), non-Marxist, was a rather particular personage.47 He dealt with the era of early medieval history, genealogy and Ottonian policies. Despite the official urge for politically biased publications, Sielaff did not respond. Throughout his entire academic career, he refused to publish the results of his research. Dr. Waltraud Bleiber (1962- ), the only woman in this group, was a lecturer in the different fields of medieval history. These four scientists – comprising the entire staff of the department – shaped for decades the teaching and research work in “Marxist medieval history” at the Humboldt University.48

• 49 The division of the history of Middle Ages into two different historical lines was decided at state (...)
• 50 UA HU, Phil. Fak. 1952-1960, Nr. 57, Vertrauliche Besprechung beim Staatssekretariat für Hochschulw (...)
• 51 UA HU, Phil. Fak. 1952-1960, Nr. 57, Protokoll vom 13.6.1953 und 11.09.1953.
• 52 University Archive of Humboldt University, Fachrichtung Geschichte, Nr. 60, letter from 28.4.1954 t (...)
• 53 University Archive Greifswald, Nachlass Sielaff, letter Dr. Frithjof Sielaff (o.J.), p. 4.
• 54 See Berndt, Heinrich, Neumeister, op. cit., Sielaff, p. 32.
• 55 These drafts had a strong preference for subjects such as social sciences, socialist pedagogy and p (...)

15Further measures accompanied the formation of new Marxist trained historians in the 1950s, destined to transform the “bourgeois” medieval historiography into a Marxist one. The structure and the curriculum of medieval history were reorganized according to decisions at the state level.49 The history of Middle Ages was split up into two separate research fields: the General History of the Middle Ages and the German History of the Middle Ages.50 The non-Marxist historians Albrecht Timm and Frithjof Sielaff raised major objections to this decision.51 Other Historians, such as Professor Schilfert, favoured the separation52. From Sielaff’s point of view, it was impossible to strictly separate the Middle Ages from the Early Modern period. History has a continuity and coherence within itself. Instead of fragmentation through restrictive specialisation, it would be a matter of detecting the correlations and influencing factors between the epochs.53 In addition, he also criticised the declining conditions in teaching and research regarding skills of the students and the quality of scientific activity.54 The teaching drafts and research projects were discussed within the disciplines, but ultimately the State Secretariat for Higher Education presented a finished prefixed draft.55

• 56 In the GDR, tradition-building was to serve as a “means of self-understanding for answering questio (...)
• 57 Jan Herman Brinks, Die DDR-Geschichtswissenschaft auf dem Weg zur deutschen Einheit. Luther, Friedr (...)
• 58 Walter Schmidt, Aspekte der Erbe- und Traditionsdebatte in der Geschichtswissenschaft (Sitzungsberi (...)

17The reasons for the detachment of a German history of the Middle Ages from the epoch of the Middle Ages could be related to the effort on the political level, which increasingly began from the beginning of the 1960s to construct its own socialist line of tradition that has its roots in feudalism. In short, who shapes history, shapes collective memory and creates identity.56 In this respect, feudalism was part of creating new socialist identity, interpretation of history and socialist Weltanschauung. The greater the generation gap between the war and post-war generations, the more important it became for the GDR to reinforce national legitimacy.57 In the later debate on tradition in the 1970s, this necessity is affirmed. At the same time, it became obvious that tradition-building needs more than socio-economic explanations, it needs historic personalities to identify with. They are integral part of a collective identity.58

• 59 His colleague Frithjof Sielaff characterized Albrecht Timm not in terms of party membership: “Thing (...)
• 60 See Albrecht Timm, Geschichte der Bevölkerung am Südostharz. Ein Beitrag zur ländlichen Soziologie (...)
• 61 According to the perspective plan: one professor with chair for General History of the Middle Ages; (...)
• 62 The research plan from 1954 listed works: 1. Eckhard Müller-Mertens: „Zur Geschichte der branden­bu (...)
• 63 Rose-Marie Kullmann, „Ökonomische und gesellschaftliche Wechselbeziehungen zwischen Stadt und Land (...)
• 64 See Archive of Humboldt University, Fachrichtung Geschichte, Nr. 60.

18The general history of the Middle Ages as an individual discipline was established at the Institute for General History at Humboldt University. Fritz Rörig was appointed director of the department. After his death in 1952, the department of General History of the Middle Ages was headed by the “bourgeois” Professor Timm from August 1952 to July 1955. Albrecht Timm (1915-1980) was not a member of the official party (SED).59 He specialized in late medieval and agricultural topics, agricultural and settlement history and published on medieval and settlement history issues.60 According to the perspective plan in 1954/55, the staff of the department including lecturers and assistants reached under the direction of Professor Albrecht Timm the highest quote of 13 scientists.61 The number decreased rapidly in the following years. Dr. Eckhard Müller-Mertens, Dr. Bernhard Töpfer and Dr. Siegfried Epperlein were among the aspirants of the department in 1954.62 Other colleagues were Dr. Frithjof Sielaff, Klaus Schwarz and Hartmut Roß; further aspirants included Rudolf Studanski and Heinz-Joachim Schulze. Senior assistant Dr. Rose-Marie Kullmann researched on urban-rural relations in the late Middle Ages, especially in Mecklenburg. She left the department in 1955 to West Germany.63 The assistants Schwarz and Roß left the department as of September 1956. Only Bernhard Töpfer and Waltraud Bleiber remained as assistants. Siegfried Epperlein changed to the Institute for History at the Academy of Science after finishing his doctorate.64

• 65 Ralph JESSEN, Sozialgeschichte der ostdeutschen Gelehrtenschaft, in ed. Akademische Elite, p.  121.
• 66 Marianne Müller und Egon Erwin Müller, „… stürmt die Festung Wissenschaft“. Die Sowjetisierung der (...)

19At the beginning of the 1950s, non-Marxist scientists were welcomed in the new founded GDR to help in restoring the educational system provided it benefited official policy. Non-Marxist academics and re-immigrants had contributed essentially to the reestablishment of the school system and of the education sector in the young GDR. But the attitude towards non-Marxist academics changed, beginning with the mid-1955s, with the announcement of Marxism as the axiom for society, science, and politics.65 A new university model, grounded in the Marxist understanding of science, was set to transform the academic sector itself. The Marxist model intended to alter the social structure not only of the staff, but of students as well. These transformations went along with the intended “destruction” of the “bourgeois superiority” in the universities, replaced by historians trained in Marxist historiography and expected to assist the transformation process in the GDR.66 This process was backed by a centralized strategy officially and equally applied to all academic disciplines. In the case of medieval studies at the Humboldt University, these methods included official perspective plans or working plans (Aktionsplan) containing research topics, teaching methods and political guidelines to be observed by the entire staff.

• 67 Suizides of Karl Griewank (1953), Martin Lintzel (1955), Willy Flach (1958). See also John Conelly, (...)
• 68 John Conelly, Zur „Republikflucht“ von DDR-Wissenschaftlern in den fünfziger Jahren, in: ZfG 42 (19 (...)
• 69 The lack of personnel was immediately noticeable at the Institute for General History, the Departme (...)
• 70 Susanne König, Umbau des Hochschulwesens, p. 84.

20The pressure on academics to conform to the official policy increased during the 1950s: Leaving or adapting? The atmosphere of these years is tragically reflected in the suicides of the historians Karl Griewank, Martin Lintzel and Willy Flach.67 Many academics left the GDR, already before 1961, which caused an academic “brain drain”.68 Professor Albrecht Timm represented just one example of the major shift that took place; he decided to leave the GDR discreetly in summer 1955 for West Germany. His departure created a major shortage in the performance of courses and special lectures in the department.69 This situation reflected on the one hand the urgent need for historians and, on the other hand, the increasingly hostile atmosphere after the mid-1950s. The erection of the Berlin Wall in 1961 closed all possibilities for personnel fluctuation and academic exchange. In the case of medieval history at the Humboldt University, the transformation took place between 1955 and 1958.70

• 71 See Archive of Humboldt University, Fakultätsratsprotokolle, Nr. 5, Protocol from 15.2.1956, sh. 4.
• 72 Bernhard Töpfer supervised the young scientists of the department. See Archive of Humboldt Universi (...)
• 73 See Archive of Humboldt University, Nr. 112, Jahresbericht 1962, p. 5-6.
• 74 Frithjof Sielaff, Das Frühe und Hohe Mittelalter. Quellenkritische Beobachtungen, edited by Iris Be (...)
• 75 University Archive of Humboldt University, Sektion Geschichte, Nr. 91, Studienprogramm Feudalismus, (...)

21Surprisingly, the Non-Marxist Dr. Frithjof Sielaff was appointed as interim head of the department in the summer of 1956.71 The young Marxist trained Dr. Bernhard Töpfer, senior assistant to Professor Sielaff, was the only lecturer of the department at that time.72 The thematic focus shifted from the Late Middle Ages to the Early Middle Ages according to Sielaff’s research interests.73 Sielaff dealt especially with questions related to Emperor Otto and his politics.74 He did not refer explicitly to feudalism as epochal term or research method based on Marxist-Leninist Literature although he has been repeatedly criticised for that. Officially, feudalism was always the starting point for the analysis of social formations. The focus laid on the French, Spanish and English references to the German history and nation-building process founded on feudalistic parameters.75

• 76 The implementation of political guidelines in the academic world comprised the obligation to assist (...)
• 77 See Archive of Humboldt University, Nr. 112, Weiterbildung Töpfer, p. 1.
• 78 See Archive of Humboldt University, Nr. 112, Weiterbildung Töpfer, p. 2.
• 79 Bernhard Töpfer's habilitation was titled „The Development of Chiliastic Expectations in the High M (...)
• 80 See Archive of Humboldt University, Nr. 112, Weiterbildung Töpfer, p.  1-2.
• 81 See Archive of Humboldt University, Nr. 62/1, sh. 20 and Nr. 112, Forschungstätigkeit, p. 1. “I mys (...)
• 82 “[…] I would like to add, however, that I will therefore not completely lose sight of the problems (...)
• 83 Bernhard Töpfer prepared an essay on “The views of Pope John XXII on the dominiu” for a commemorati (...)
• 84 Matthias Springer, who was a research assistant at the Department of General History of the Middle (...)
• 85 Archive of Humboldt University, Nr. 112, Volkswirtschaftsplan 1964, p. 4.
• 86 Archive of Humboldt University, Nr. 112, Volkswirtschaftsplan 1964, p. 2.
• 87 Bernhard Töpfer revised the 250-page manuscript for a larger presentation of the medieval heretical (...)
• 88 See Eckhard Müller-Mertens, Nationale Frage, deutscher Staat, Ermittlungsmethoden. Bemerkungen zu F (...)

22Studying the Marxist-Leninist basic studies was mandatory for students but also “political training” and “social activities”.76 In case of Bernhard Töpfer, he had to “deepen his knowledge in the field of Marxist-Leninist philosophy”77. Instead of joining the official state party (SED), he joined one of the sub organisations (FDGB) and the association of Historians (FGL).78 Bernhard Töpfer obtained his habilitation with a thesis on Chiliastic expectations during the High Middle Ages.79 Professor Sielaff considered the history of the medieval church and the religious-social movements as Bernhard Töpfer’s future work field.80 But with feudalism as the new spotlight, things turned out differently: Töpfer abandoned his previous research focus on the problems of medieval history of the church and medieval ideology in favour of medieval urban development, a topic officially mandatory for all students studying the history of the medieval ages.81 Nevertheless, Töpfer did not “want to lose sight” of his original research field.82 He continued research on the development of heretical popular religious movements – a set of themes that have been of life long concern to him.83 One of his research topics was the medieval theory of society and state, which led to a research project on the “ideal original conditions of common property and general equality of all people” and the question of how these conditions gained “revolutionary content” in the late Middle Ages.84 Bernhard Töpfer was a very engaged and productive historian in his research and teaching assignments including supervision of Ph.D. students, as well as in other projects, such as the co-edition of the chronology of world.85 After the defence of his habilitation in 1961, he held the majority of lectures on feudalism, urban communities and social-religious popular movements86 for medieval specialists. Although both used the inescapable Marxist methodology,87 they shared a common conception of the research and teaching methodology comprising critical analysis of international sources instead of relying solely on Marxist-Leninist literature.88

• 89 See Archive of Humboldt University, Forschungsvorhaben und Forschungsberichte 1952-1958, Nr. 113, L (...)
• 90 See Archive of Humboldt University, Fachrichtung Geschichte, Nr. 60; See Archive of Humboldt Univer (...)
• 91 Archive of Humboldt University, Fakultätsratsprotokolle, Nr. 5, Protocol 15.02.1956, sh. 4.
• 92 Frithjof Sielaff considered himself as Non-Marxist. Sielaff's method was critical analysis of sourc (...)
• 93 Berndt, Heinrich und Neumeister, Sielaff, p. 69-71. Sielaff was interested in questions of economic (...)
• 94 Since the change in the head of the department, the research work was to focus on medieval city his (...)

23From 1952 to 1955, the focus in research and teaching had been on the late Middle Ages as reflected in the works of Professor Albrecht Timm about the urban-rural relations89 and in the productions of other staff members.90 The focus shifted from the Late Middle Ages to the Central Middle Ages when Dr. Frithjof Sielaff took over the interims position.91 After his habilitation (“Promotion B”), Frithjof Sielaff investigated the uses of the terms “Reich” and “Nation” (10^th and early 11^th centuries) and on the period between the 5^th and 7^th centuries.92 He studied the European history of the Middle Ages (Frederick III and his European politics), particularly the beginning of Ottonian Italian politics as a formative factor in the creation of the “Reich” and the German-Russian-Polish relations. Sielaffs’ greatest interests were constitutional history and biographies: investigations into the nature of the German state and its Italian policy, and the personal histories during the great migrations. 93In 1962, a big change in personnel took place when Bernhard Töpfer took over the position after his habilitation. Bernhard Töpfer focused on the history of urban formation during the Middle Ages: “In particular, the emergence of urban communities in Germany, northern and southern France and Italy is to be investigated in order to be able to better comprehend the general traits and the legalities by means of a comparative examination”.94

• 95 Bernhard Töpfer had published various articles in the Zeitschrift für Geschichte (ZfG), including “ (...)
• 96 The Perspective Plan of 1964/65 states that Dr. Töpfer will continue his previous work on the devel (...)
• 97 See Archive of Humboldt University, Nr. 112, Gemeinsamer Perspektivplan, p. 14.
• 98 Archive of Humboldt University, Nr. 112, Gemeinsamer Perspektivplan, p. 14.
• 99 Prof. Töpfer worked on an extensive popular scientific work on the history of France in the 16th ce (...)
• 100 Dean Kohl asked Eckhard Müller-Mertens, as a member of a commission, to support the preparations th (...)
• 101 The diploma theses (1962) dealt with the then main topic of the history of the Carolingian empire. (...)
• 102 Among the regular events that e.g. appeared in the 1962 Annual Report: The 8^th Workshop of the “Han (...)
• 103 See Archive of Humboldt University, Nr. 112, Jahresbericht 1962, 2, p.  6-7.
• 104 The staff members Müller-Mertens, Töpfer, Schulze and Epperlein worked together on the chapter of t (...)
• 105 Archive of Humboldt University, Studienangelegenheiten 1964-1968, Nr. 35.
• 106 See Archive of Humboldt University, Nr. 112, Letter to Dean Kohl 6.12.1963, p. 1.

24Overall, the department’s research work, especially that of Professor Bernhard Töpfer, was one of the most productive in terms of publications and research work.95 Professor Töpfer worked on a publication on natural law.96 It was about proving that the essence of the class struggle was reflected in the field of ideology, i.e. that the “class divisions” taken up by the “feudal church system” and the social-religious movements that emerged, especially in the High Middle Ages (“High Feudalism”), already carried in themselves this “revolutionary content”97. According to the official perspective plan, the investigation of this complex of questions was particularly urgent. West German literature treated it intensively, while it has scarcely been taken into account in Marxist historiography.98 Despite that, Töpfer kept on working on his previous interests, such as heretical movements, the Hussite revolutionary movements and urban movements. In addition, it was mandatory to produce ‘popular-academic’ (“populärwissenschaftliche”) writings. Popular papers published by Töpfer and his colleagues dealt for instance with “the economic and political development of France”. They aimed at educating the ordinary people about the history of France.99 Bernhard Töpfer was recognized as an expert on the “problems of the history of intellectual thoughts and ideas” of the Middle Ages and was appreciated for his lectures and conferences.100 Also, assistance for graduate students and distance-learning students,101 as well as monthly Colloquia, conferences and editing articles102 were routine. Furthermore, politically favoured publications were part of the daily work for all the staff members.103 Projects and scientific publications commissioned by the SED absorbed a significant part of the research time. This was the case with the “Chronology of World History”, a publication adjusted to an ordinary audience (“popular science”), as well as with the extensive nationwide project of the “Textbook for German History”104 and curriculums for schoolbooks (6th grade history class), with the contribution of Joachim Streisand, Eckhard Müller-Mertens and Bernhard Töpfer.105 The department was also in charge of training schoolteachers in the area of medieval history, an activity requiring adequate didactic qualifications and scientific supervision.106 Apparently, further training had become necessary because many teachers had only limited knowledge of medieval history. From the spring semester (FS) 1966 onwards, specialized seminars prepared the future teachers in the ten-class general-education polytechnic secondary schools (POS).

• 107 Archive of Humboldt University, Nr. 112, Letter dated 6.12.1963 to Dean Kohl, p. 2.
• 108 See Archive of Humboldt University, Nr. 112, Jahresbericht 1962, p. 8-9.
• 109 In 1965, the focus of the investigations was on the examination of private certificates, sources of (...)
• 110 The habilitation of Mrs. Dr. Waltraud Bleiber’s in 1967 had the title “Market places between the (...)
• 111 See Archive of Humboldt University, Phil. Nr. 112, Arbeitsprogramm, p. 1-2.
• 112 Archive of Humboldt University, Nr. 112, Letter to Dean Kohl 6.12.1963, p. 2.

25As was the case with all the departments providing teaching in medieval history, official prefixed academic plans set the course.107 Official perspective plans cancelled the focus on the Carolingian Empire and the formation period of the “Reich”, topics deemed socially irrelevant and susceptible to overshadow more significant questions.108 The period of the Early Middle Ages was thus renamed Early Feudalism, while the High Middle Ages became High Feudalism, with the main focus on urban developments and class struggles against the feudal power.109 Mrs. Waltraud Bleiber, for example, habilitated on the subject of early feudalism in the field of social distribution of labour, including the social function of trade and the extent of product-money relations.110 Töpfer pointed out that “the early periods of urban development currently play a central role in the `bourgeois´ historiography of West Germany, while in the GDR and the socialist countries – apart from a few works by Soviet historians – this undoubtedly extremely important complex of questions is hardly addressed. “ It is henceforth imperative to present the “bourgeois” historiography with a counter-draft to its “overemphasis of the role of the long-distance trader (Fernhändlers) ”. Töpfer saw “the role of handicraft production and local exchange of goods” as a possible counter-draft, suitable to foster a solid image of Marxist medieval studies.111 Although the materialistic method of investigation was mandatory, Bernhard Töpfer drew attention, as early as 1963, to the shortcomings of a “Marxist” approach to medieval history, especially when applied to research. He emphasized the importance of pursuing profound research on medieval history sources in order to avoid the risk of losing track of international developments in the field. Despite the Berliner Section, Töpfer considered the department at the University of Leipzig as the only one “capable of qualified research in the field of General history of the Middle Ages and thus reasonably well staffed”.112 His evaluation reflects the restructuring in the field of History of the Middle Ages in the 1950/60s at the Humboldt university. Bernhard Töpfer spent all his academic career in Berlin, until his retirement in 1991.

• 113 Archive of Humboldt University, Nr. 112, Letter to Dean Kohl 6.12.1963, p. 2.
• 114 Archive of Humboldt University, Nr. 112, Volkswirtschaftsplan 1964, p. 4.
• 115 In an exchange of letters with the Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy, Prof. Lehnert, Müller-Mertens (...)
• 116 The work of the department of the Institute of General History was adversely affected when a change (...)
• 117 The dissertations dealt with the former research focus of the department of the Institute for Germa (...)
• 118 Because of the difficult topic and “social activity” Neubert finished two years later. He completed (...)
• 119 See Archive of Humboldt University, Nr. 112, Letter to Dean Kohl 6.12.1963, 1. Neubert reassigned t (...)
• 120 As Prof. Schilfert, Director of the Institute for General History, emphasized. Bernhard Töpfer need (...)
• 121 Bernhard Töpfer wrote in a letter to the dean, “It was not possible to fill the position immediatel (...)
• 122 Dr. Bleiber, who received her doctorate in the summer of 1962, filled this position. See Archive of (...)
• 123 In the longer term it was “planned” to staff the department with one head of department (professor (...)
• 124 Selected topics such as the “General History of the Middle Ages from 1500 to 1640” and special subj (...)
• 125 Bernhard Töpfer continues: “At present, therefore, only one lecturer (also head of department) and (...)
• 126 Eckhard Müller-Mertens in his statement on the subject: This position was occupied at the time by D (...)

26The fragmentation of medieval history into a German and General History of the Middle Ages was officially implemented beginning with the mid-1950s. The lack of qualified personnel at the beginning of the 1960 deplored by Bernhard Töpfer, is reflected in the developments of both departments (General History and German History of the Middle Ages) at the Humboldt University. Overall, as seen in the department of Professor Eckhard Müller-Mertens (German History of Middle Ages), the research was “outsourced” to the institutes and facilities of the Academy of Sciences. As a result, universities turned into teaching spaces lacking research capacities, as confirmed by Bernhard Töpfer’s report. Even though the Institute for History at the German Academy of Sciences in Berlin was designated for research, Töpfer concluded that creating the suitable conditions for further scientific work in the field of general medieval history at the Humboldt University was a priority. Otherwise, it would not be able to respond adequately to issues discussed by modern historians.113 Under the current circumstances, as he concluded, it would have been hardly possible. Töpfer’s analysis of the conditions in the field of medieval history came along with the experience of a lengthy and exhausting bureaucratic process. Professor Müller-Mertens heavily insisted114 to appoint Bernhard Töpfer as the new head of the department of General history of the Middle Ages, which finally took place in 1962115. At the same time, the assistant positions for the department were consistently changing. Mrs. Waltraud Bleiber was a senior assistant, Harald Neubert worked as an assistant in the department until 1963, while Matthias Springer held a chair between 1966 and 1968. The tug-of-war over personnel changes affected as well the scientific profile of the department.116 In 1962, the two research assistants Harald Neubert and Waltraud Bleiber worked mainly on their doctoral theses117. Compulsory social activities and compulsory reunions imposed by the party policy led to adjournments.118 The situation was worsened by Neubert’s departure before finishing his doctorate, in October 1963.119 Bernhard Töpfer – like his colleague Müller-Mertens – was responsible for a large part of the teaching activities and for the department’s research projects.120 In January 1964, Töpfer once again reminded that the (“Neubert”) position should be occupied, or it risked being cancelled due to the prolonged vacancy.121 The lack of qualified historians and of qualifications in medieval history continued to characterize the German History and General History departments of medieval studies at the Humboldt University. The delays in the qualification process of the existing staff caused further postponements in recruiting new personnel, with the younger scientists in “waiting positions”. In case of the department of General history of the Middle Ages, the senior assistant position was “waiting position” of sorts.122 The needed assistant position and three further positions for historians ware rarely occupied123, so that the seminars or lectures could not be offered.124 As Bernhard Töpfer explained, this led to a reduction in the quality of the research activities.125 The effort required to fill in vacant positions, as in the case of the assistant position (“Neubert position”), deflected an exhausting amount of time and required navigating through the bureaucratic administrative apparatus, up to the highest authority – the State Secretary for Higher Education. The centralised control of teaching and research by the State Secretary led to a bureaucratisation of the scientific process. The horizontal distribution of posts led to competition between the departments for jobs and funds.126 Bureaucratisation, lack of junior staff policy and international exchange permanently shrank the potential of the department.

• 127 Horst Köpstein, Die Aufgaben des Instituts für Geschichte des deutschen Volkes an der Humboldt-Univ (...)
• 128 Horst Köpstein, Die Aufgaben des Instituts, p. 114.
• 129 The composition of the department of Middle Ages: Professor Eckhard Müller-Mertens, head of the dep (...)
• 130 The department needed two more assistant positions (taken over from the old department) and one sen (...)
• 131 “The aforementioned set of problems seems particularly suitable because dealing with it helps to cl (...)
• 132 See University Archive of Humboldt University, Institut für deutsche Geschichte, Nr. 7376, Grundsät (...)
• 133 Topics: The emergence of private ownership on the means of production, the classes and the state in (...)
• 134 University Archive of Humboldt University, Fachrichtung Geschichte, Nr. 60, Bericht wissenschaftlic (...)
• 135 See University Archive of Humboldt University, Sektion Geschichte, Nr. 96, Bericht Forschungsarbeit (...)
• 136 Topics in 1959 included the “transformation of free peasants and slaves into feudal peasants and th (...)
• 137 University Archive of Humboldt University, Sektion Geschichte, Nr. 101, Bericht Forschungsarbeit Fa (...)
• 138 Eckhard Müller-Mertens, Regnum Teutonicum. Aufkommen und Verbreitung der deutschen Reichs‐ und Köni (...)

27The German History of the Middle Ages was established in 1956 at the Institute for German History. Institutes for German History were established in the East German universities of Berlin, Halle and Leipzig.127 In January 1952, the corresponding institute was founded at the Humboldt University, renamed the Institute for German History (former “Institute for History of the German People”) in 1956 and headed by Professor Kamnitzer.128 The institute had five departments,129 including the mentioned department of Middle Ages, as well as a department of Contemporary History. The first director of the new established discipline of German History of Middle Ages was the young Marxist historian Dr. Eckhard Müller-Mertens, appointed in 1956. The situation of the department was deficient, as the staff necessary for covering all the teaching and research assignments was wanting.130 A “German History of the Middle Ages” was supposed to focus on the “German” developments and traditions, by studying “the emergence and growth of feudal production relations and the formation of a state in Germany”131. It comprised the “German History from the beginning until 1476”, analysing feudal processes, such as the establishment of large property and lordship, the development of towns and the emergence of an urban bourgeoisie.132 Research focused on social, constitutional, legal, and settlement history in relation to the emergence of feudalism133 and to the formation of a German state.134 Research in the history of urbanisation, especially in Brandenburg, was equally one of the department’s orientations.135 Topics such as the revolutionary social-religious movements in urban centres and towns, Luther’s position on the knightly movement and sectarian movements (Hussites) as caused by the miserable living conditions in Germany during the 15th century were prevailing at the beginning of the 1950s. Starting with the mid-1950s, Marxist historiography and historical materialism were imposed as dominant teaching and research subjects. At the end of the 1950s, the confrontation with the “imperialist historiography”136 and the “early bourgeois revolution” were central themes of the institute for German History, for which it held a leading position within the framework of GDR history studies.137 Despite that, the leading historian Eckhard Müller-Mertens continued research and publications on his interests such as Genealogy, as well as the formation of the German Medieval Empire and of the “Reich Idea”.138

• 139 University Archive of Humboldt University, Phil. Fak. Institutsangelegenheiten, Nr. 83, Protocol of (...)
• 140 See University Archive of Humboldt University, Phil. Fak. 1958-1967, Nr. 112, Institut für Allgemei (...)
• 141 See University Archive of Humboldt University, Fachrichtung Geschichte, Nr. 60, Arbeitsplan des Ins (...)
• 142 The doctorate was supervised by Professor Dr. Müller-Mertens, Dr. Töpfer and Dr. Beck. Hauptfach Ge (...)

28In 1957, Dr. Müller-Mertens took over the chair of the department of German History of Middle Ages (initially on a provisional basis). At the beginning of the 1960s, the Institute had three young scientists: Hannelore Lehmann, Evamaria Engel and Günter Vogler. Hannelore Lehmann (*1933) completed her dissertation on “The Social Conditions of the Agilolfinger and Carolingian Period in the Bavarian District of Ebersberg”139 in the spring of 1965. Shortly after, she left the Institute and pursued her activity at the Central Institute of History at the Academy of Sciences in the GDR.140 Ms. Reichelt took over her position in September 1965.141 Evamaria Engel (*1934) studied history and historical auxiliary sciences as a minor subject. In 1956, after finishing her studies, she became an assistant at the Institute of German History. Engel obtained her doctorate in 1963 on the theme of “Feudal lords, vassals and farmers in the Altmark. An analysis of the rural social structure based on the Brandenburg Land Book of 1375”.142

• 143 Evamaria Engel finished her dissertation with the title “Sozialanalyse Altmark anhand des Landbuche (...)
• 144 See Archive of Humboldt University, Institut für deutsche Geschichte, Nr. 77, Perspektivplan der Ab (...)
• 145 See Archive of Humboldt University, Nr. 112, Gemeinsamer Perspektivplan, p. 18-19.
• 146 Eckhard Müller-Mertens investigated the titularity of kings, especially in Franconian and German ro (...)
• 147 Archive of Humboldt University, Sektion Geschichte, Nr. 7372, Arbeitsprogramm 1965, p. 13.

29Professor Müller-Mertens had great scientific plans for the department: he wanted to set up the “Berlin-Brandenburg regional history and the historical auxiliary sciences” as a research centre that would work in close relationship with the Academy Institute for Ancient history.143 In fact, qualified teaching staff was lacking, and therefore seminars on Brandenburg’s regional history could not be provided “as it is done in West-Berlin [Freie Universität]”.144 Although Evamaria Engel seemed to be the best candidate for leading the unit of regional history, plans did not work out as Engel left the Institute, after completing her doctorate, in order to become a research assistant at the Institute for History at the German Academy of Sciences (DAW). This case sheds light on a forthcoming development characterized by the failure to integrate qualified staff and the rigid academic policies that failed to promote research and secure scientific qualifications.145 As a result, Eckhard Müller-Mertens himself offered courses on the history of Brandenburg.146 He was largely responsible for teaching and supervising students specialising in the field of Middle Ages. His two doctoral assistants were in charge of supervising the state examination candidates as well as the long-distance students and scientific events. For example, in cooperation with the Department of Medieval History (Institute for General History) and the Department of Feudalism (Institute for History at the German Academy of Science (DAW), they prepared a cycle of colloquia for the International Historians’ Congress in Vienna at the end of 1965.147 Overall, Müller-Mertens carried the main workload as the only full-time teacher, which made the necessity for qualified teaching staff more than evident.

• 148 It was planned to create a position for Berlin-Brandenburg regional history. Mrs. Dr. Engel from th (...)
• 149 See Kaderprogramm zur Durchführung des Perspektivplanes bis 1970 (19.11.1965) des Instituts für Deu (...)
• 150 See Dr. Siegfried EPPERLEIN on the concept of Western Europe (Abendland) and Europe, in Archive of (...)

30Because of the precarious teaching situation at the Department of Medieval History at the Institute of German History, the lecture programme was dependent on external part-time lecturers. Evamaria Engel taught as an external lecturer for regional history at the Institute. Over the long run, she remained at the Academy, leading the area of feudalism at the Institute of History at the Academy.148 Another external lecturer, Dr. Siegfried Epperlein (*1926), took over a part-time teaching position for the historical auxiliary sciences in Müller-Merten’s department at the Institute of German History.149 He was a Senior Research Assistant at the Institute for History of the German Academy of Sciences (DAW) and dealt with the concept of Western Europe (Abendland) and the life of peasants and nobles in the medieval epoch.150 Siegfried Epperlein later became the head of the Department for Medieval History at the Academy of Sciences.

• 151 After receiving his doctorate in 1966, Wolfgang Eggert worked on the topic of East Franconian-Ge (...)
• 152 Alexander Fischer, Günther Heydemann, Geschichtswissenschaft in der DDR, Volume 1-2, Berlin, 1988/9 (...)
• 153 See Fischer/Heydemann, Weg und Wandel, p. 134.
• 154 Susanne König, Leben in außergewöhnlichen Zeiten, p. 208; Peter Th. Walther, Fritz Hartung und die (...)

31After the first generation of medievalists like Eckhard Müller-Mertens and Bernhard Töpfner, a new generation of Marxist trained historians, such as Evamaria Engel or Wolfgang Eggert (1938-2006),151 represented the new academic profiles. However, the majority left the university for the more attractive Academy Institutes. This transfer of academic staff reflects the official East German academic policy on the macro level until 1989.152 According to this policy, the universities were higher educational institutions responsible exclusively for teaching and professional training for teachers. In contrast, the academy institutes represented the officially determined places for research and scientific studies. The Central Institute for History at the Academy of Sciences took over the central office for research planning in the field of historiography. In 1968, it was replaced by the newly founded Council for the Study of History, as an advisory and implementation body.153 The official policy consisting in decoupling academic teaching and research and in splitting it up into two institutionally and structurally different units – universities and scientific academies – had its long lasting effects.154 The failure to promote young scientists in the universities and the shortage of scientific specialists illustrate that situation of the History Section of the Humboldt University in the early 1970s.

• 155 Archive of Humboldt University, Institut für deutsche Geschichte, Nr. 77, Perspektivplan der Abteil (...)
• 156 See Archive of Humboldt University, Fakultätsratsprotokolle, Nr. 57, Draft protocol of the Conferen (...)
• 157 Peter SEGL, Mittelalterforschung in der Geschichtswissenschaft der DDR, in Alexander Fischer/Günthe (...)
• 158 According to official termini the habilitation was renamed Promotion B. [ed.]
• 159 Archive of Humboldt University, Nr. 112, Gemeinsamer Perspektivplan, p. 11-12. Estimates based on p (...)

32The transfer of scientists to the academy institutes was impactful, as illustrated by Professor Müller-Mertens’ department. By the mid-1960s, official plans for the medieval studies suggested the assembly “of a small but highly qualified stock of Marxist Medievalists able to cope with the extensive and difficult tasks facing the Marxist medieval studies in the GDR.”155 The plan suggested sorting out the most capable of the students in view of a specialisation in the history of Middle Ages as early as possible. Professor Müller-Mertens had therefore drawn up a requirement profile for student’s qualifications, which included the capacity to formulate a critical stand on historical events and a solid knowledge of Latin.156 The latter criterion entailed an additional effort, since East-German schools did not offer Latin as school subject anymore. The official goal of “a small but highly qualified stock of Marxist Medievalists” became difficult to achieve when confronted with the situation of the academic stock.157 Overall, an estimated 1 to 3 students chose to specialize in medieval History each academic year, while an estimated 7 to 10 students completed a doctorate and 1 to 2 historians a Promotion B158 during the existence of the Institute for German History (1956 to 1968).159

• 160 According to the perspective plan, the following topics were in focus: the analysis of social devel (...)
• 161 Archive of Humboldt University, Sektion Geschichte, Nr. 100, Maßnahmenplan 1966/67, p. 1-2.
• 162 Helmut Assing, „Analyse der ländlichen Sozialstruktur des Havellandes, des Teltow und der Zauche an (...)
• 163 Eckhard Müller-Mertens, „Karl der Große, Ludwig der Fromme und die Freien“ (Monographie, 1963), „Da (...)
• 164 Professor Müller-Mertens conducted studies on the constitutional terminology used in the documents (...)
• 165 In 1967, Müller-Mertens gave a lecture to the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Brno on “T (...)
• 166 Dr. Koch dealt with the development of the “Reich’s” idea in the investiture dispute and the Staufe (...)
• 167 The dissertations of Mr. Eggert and Ms. Reichelt reflected the main topic of the department. Mr. Eg (...)
• 168 Archive of Humboldt University, Institut für allgemeine Geschichte, Nr. 113, Letter to Max Steinmet (...)
• 169 “The Age of the Ottons”, published in 1955 by Rütten&Loening, was discussed in the “Zeitschrift für (...)

33According to official plans (Aktionsplan), feudalism was supposed to be the dominant topic in research and teaching.160 However, it was only partially reflected in the publications of staff members.161 The majority of research papers were related to studies analysing the medieval social structure in rural areas, the Agilolfingen era and the Carolingian period.162 The head of the department, Professor Müller-Mertens, published works on Charlemagne and Louis the Pious,163 while researching on the concept of the “German Reich” and its origins,164 likewise reflected in his teaching and lectures.165 Other research topics included social structure, social actors and Empire building in the Early Middle Ages. Among the publications of other members, we can mention: “Investigations into the situation of ecclesiastical land ownership in East Franconia, West Franconia and Lorraine from the conclusion of the Treaty of Verdun to the beginning of the 11th century” (doctoral thesis by Waltraud Bleiber); “Studies on the reaction of church and king to the oppression of the people in the Early Middle Ages” (Habilitation by Siegfried Epperlein);166 and “The East Franconian-German Empire in the View of the Contemporaries” (by Wolfgang Eggert).167 Professor Eckhard Müller-Mertens led the research and teaching activities of the department until 1968, encouraging students to critically study the works of historians from the Western European Countries and the Soviet Union.168 This attitude was not acceptable in the light of the official Marxist approach. Eckhard Müller-Mertens had already been criticised by colleagues for the approach and scientific methods adopted in his early articles. His publication on the Ottonian politics (1955) was deemed as an “undialectic way of looking at peasant conditions”; he was equally criticized for not using the classics of Marxism-Leninism as a source in his scientific writings.169 In the long run, Müller-Mertens continued to take a critical stand in spite of the official guidelines.

• 170 […] “in accordance with the plans of the University and the State Secretary for Higher Education an (...)
• 171 The analysis of the staff (so-called “Kader”) situation and needs was based on a letter from the St (...)
• 172 See Archive of Humboldt Univ., Fachrichtung Geschichte, Nr. 66, Arbeitsplan Mittelalter 1966, sh. 7 (...)
• 173 Ibid, sh. 79.

34State control was constantly present in everyday academic life.170 Teaching and academic work were regularly scrutinized by the authorities (the so-called Kaderanalysen).171 In the field of medieval studies, the official examinations revealed, as early as the mid-1960s, the lack of qualified young medievalists.172 Instead of promoting strategies meant to train a new generation of historians in medieval studies, recruitment policies were postponed, a typical scheme for avoiding changes in the system.173

• 174 Lectures and seminars were held at party owned schools and at schools of party-affiliated social or (...)
• 175 Selection of questions for evaluation: What topics does the struggle for peace and socialism at (...)
• 176 The “staff” consisted of Professor Dr. Bernhard Töpfer (qualifications in General history of the Mi (...)

35From the beginning of the 1950s, state officials aimed to ensure the receptiveness to the Marxist interpretation of history and the effectiveness of socialist education among academic personnel and students174, by compelling professors to examine frequently the “social effect”175 among the students. All academics had to hold memberships (Official Party SED or other foundations, such as FDGB, Trade Union etc.), to attend special courses and to participate in official social engagements. However, Indifference and even non-participation were found and possible among academics. The personnel in both departments of German History of the Middle Ages and General history of the Middle Ages kept their positions from the mid-1950s until late 1980s.176

• 177 Nikolaus Bayer, Wurzeln der Europäischen Union. Visionäre Realpolitik bei Gründung der Montanunion, (...)
• 178 Hans-Peter Schwarz (ed.), Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Eine Bilanz nach 60 Jahren, Köln/Weimar/W (...)

37With the foundation of the two German states in 1949, the Cold War era took its course. The East-German Government (SED) constantly scrutinized the developments in the West-German State (FRG) and the West European “imperialistic” world. In April 1951, the Treaty of Paris established the “European Coal and Steel Community” (ECSC), to which six European states. For the first time, it took on a supranational character.177 The Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), under Konrad Adenauer, was one of the founding states. In doing so, Adenauer expressed the desire to take a step in the direction of the Western community of states, as part of European integration. This incipient process of Western integration aroused scepticism and resentment in both Western and Eastern Germany. For the SED, this process of “communitarization” was an affront to its proclaimed “One State - One Nation” position, implying that, despite their separation, the West and the East Germany formed one state.178

• 179 Fritz Klein, Eine Fehler-Diskussion, in Rainer Eckert/Wolfgang Küttler/Gustav Seeber (eds.), Krise (...)
• 180 See Klaus Schroeder, Der SED-Staat. Geschichte und Strukturen der DDR. Bayerische Landeszentrale fü (...)
• 181 See Beschluss der II. Parteikonferenz der SED. Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1952.
• 182 See „Die Verbesserung der Forschung und Lehre in der Geschichts-wissenschaft der Deutschen Demokrat (...)
• 183 Ideology and scientific theory merged in Marxism-Leninism. Historical materialism and the dialectic (...)
• 184 See Ingrid Hagemann, Die mittelalterliche deutsche Ostexpansion und die Adenauersche Außenpolitik, (...)
• 185 See Susanne König, Leben in außergewöhnlichen Zeiten, p. 30, 173, 174.

38After Stalin’s death in 1953, hopes of a new beginning arose in the GDR, but they were short-lived, and so were the longed-for socio-political changes179. Walter Ulbricht, Chairman of the Central Committee of the SED since 1950, was able to consolidate his position.180 During the 1950s, President Ulbricht launched the build-up of socialism in the GDR, encompassing all layers of society. The course was set in the beginning of the decade by official policies such as SED resolutions and guidelines announced at party conferences.181 These guidelines concerned the entire academic formation, and in particular historiography.182 National and European political events in the 1950s were interpreted in the light of the concept of feudalism and by applying feudalistic categories. Marxism-Leninism and the materialistic historiography were the underlying sources and scientific set of explanations for transferring Feudalism and its representation of medieval society onto contemporary events.183 Departing from this contextualization, contem­porary politicians and political developments of the 1950s were compared respectively with medieval emperors, such as Carl the Great, and their politics.184 The enfolding concept of a European Union with the ECSC in 1952, the NATO membership of the West-German state in 1955 and the foundation of the European Economic Community in 1957 were presented as the of medieval emperors attempting to dominate Europe by promoting European expansion.185

• 186 The entire scientific investigation of the West European states including the FRG was subsumed unde (...)
• 187 The secretary of state for higher education confirmed in its letter (24.7.1956) the new outlines fo (...)
• 188 Thus, in the lecture on the German history of the Middle Ages, the significance of the fateful role (...)
• 189 See Archive of Humboldt University, Sektion Geschichte, Nr. 98, Perspektivplan Institut deutsche Ge (...)

39The Middle Ages as a pattern of interpretation for contemporary politics? Apparently, the East-German concept of a nation-state was challenged by the process of supra-nationalisation initiated in the Western Europe during the 1950s. The concept of Feudalism represented in this argumentation more than an historical explanation: an ideological connection. Research on “Imperialism”186 in the GDR was based on the feudalistic model, consisting of “the history of the ruling classes from medieval times until today as the underpinning of the recent imperialistic forces of society”.187 It was argued by the East German government that the “struggle against German imperialism and militarism” had to be led at all levels of sciences, including the medieval studies the battle against “imperialism” (the West-German and European steps toward integration during the 1950/60s) resembles that against the (imperialistic) “feudalistic ruling classes” of the medieval society.188 Ideologically, this battle comprised the “struggle against the Western European ideology (‘Abendland-Europa’), the fight against the theory of cultural circles and the imperialist military doctrine of the Germanic early medieval social structure”.189

• 190 Articles summarizing current and contemporary historical questions, including contributions dealing (...)
• 191 “As is well known, the ideologies of imperialism base the reactionary goals of their declining soci (...)
• 192 See article from Axel Schildt, Zur Hochkonjunktur des Christlichen Abendlandes‹ in der westdeutsche (...)
• 193 Students had to read speeches and articles of “militaristic-clerical politicians and publicists who (...)

40According to the perspective plan of the Institute for German History of the 1959/60, topics on medieval history ought to contribute to political questions and to current developments such as the process of European unification and the accession of the FRG to NATO in the 1950s. In the perception of this feudalistic-contemporary framework, Konrad Adenauer’s path is based on the “delusional idea of the reestablishment of the Carolingian Empire, which led to so-called ’Little Europe’ and to a deepening of the division of Germany“.190 The chancellor Konrad Adenauer was associated with Charlemagne, while the process of European unification initiated in the 1950s was compared with Charlemagne’s European expansion campaigns. The East German government SED identified West Germany (including all “Western Imperialistic Forces”) as forces of a “Carolingian Empire” using Carolingian expansion policies to justify their contemporary “imperialistic policies” such as European integration process.191 The East German government used the notion of “Christian Occident” (Christliches Abendland) to reinforce national identity and present it as the anti-thesis of the process of supranationalisation. It was argued that this “ideology of integration” would lead to the dissolution of the national unity. The GDR constructed the concept of “two nations but one state” justifying its existence to their own citizens. However, East German policy perceived Germany at that time as a political and cultural unity whose preservation was GDR’s self-attributed mission.192 In seminars and lectures on medieval history at the Humboldt University, the West German policies were interpreted as expressions of “political clericalism”, while the “imperialist West German medieval studies” are presented as a falsification of history.193

• 194 Archive of Humboldt University, Institut für deutsche Geschichte, Nr. 77, Perspektivplan der Abteil (...)

41The “Medievalization” of the political discourse served to justify national policies and actions regarding the processes of European Integration in the 1950s and 1960s. In the view of the SED, representations of the Middle Ages were used by the West German “imperialistic bourgeois” politics not only to oppose the SED policies and the concept of a nation state, but also to refute the Marxist conception of history. This reasoning is highlighted in the Perspective Plan (1958/59): it is “not by accident” that the “bourgeois” medieval studies manifested interest in the emergence of the social order and of the state, in the law and the constitution of the early Middle Ages, but to combat the materialistic historiography.194

• 195 Ibid., p. 4-5.
• 196 Archive of Humboldt University, Sektion Geschichte, Nr. 100, Analyse der Forschungsarbeit v. 15.2.1 (...)
• 197 See Hans-Werner Goetz, Jörg Jarnut, Mediävistik im 21. Jahrhundert. Stand und Perspektiven der inte (...)

42Studying medieval history at the Humboldt University had clear political objectives: it served, first of all, as a safeguard against the imperialist historiography and the “falsification” of historical representation.195 According to political outlines, early medieval social and urban developments were, alongside with the “bourgeois” revolutions, keys in the “ideological struggle”. They were regarded as the “core piece of the modern imperialist historiography, which opens a new ideological campaign in the field of the Middle Ages since the time of Nazism”.196 ^{In the view of} Hans-Werner Goetz, it is not the Middle Ages, but their image which is subject to change and is kept ’up-to-date’; only in its reception the relevance of this subject can be established.197

• 198 Stefan Alisch, Die DDR von Stalin bis Gorbatschow, p. 149.
• 199 Ibid., p. 135-156.
• 200 See Henry Krisch, Der Wandel der politischen Kultur und politischen Stabilität in der DDR, in Gert- (...)
• 201 See for this Concept: Alexander Abusch, Irrweg einer Nation: Beitrag zum Verständnis deutscher Gesc (...)

43While medieval themes appeared to be popular for some time in the political discourse in both East and West Germany, it gained renewed attention in the process of nation building of the GDR. In the 1970s, the socialist government initiated the efforts of constructing an East German national consciousness through the creation of genuine socialist traditions dating back to the Middle Ages.198 The SED initially propagated the mentioned “One State-One Nation” idea at the beginning of the 1950s, but abandoned it for the thesis of “two German states and one nation” at the beginning of the 1960s.199 A further shift took place under President Erich Honecker (1912-1994), who publicised a new formula in 1971: “Two States - Two Nations”.200 The idea of diving the German people into two nations came along with division in mentality and every day culture that had developed since 1949 in the two German states, favoured by the distance of the new generations to the Second World War. The representation of the 1950s of German history as shared misery, as a chain of doom from Martin Luther and Frederick the Great to Bismarck and Hitler was not helpful in the attempt to create genuine socialist tradition.201

• 202 See Thomas Vogtherr, „Reformator“ oder „frühbürgerlicher Revolutionär“? Martin Luther im Geschichts (...)
• 203 See Gerhard Brendler, Martin Luther. Theologie und Revolution, Berlin (Ost) 1983.

44For the SED policy, the role of the Middle Ages as platform for ideological combats in the 1950s shifted to the role of a birthplace for the socialist nation and state – the German Democratic Republic. The contested figure of Martin Luther is representative of the transformation and instrumentalization of historical personalities.202 In the 1950s, the Marxist medieval studies displayed Martin Luther as a negative representative of the feudal elite and ruling class in the medieval society. At the beginning of the 1980s, Martin Luther was surprisingly proclaimed a national hero of the GDR by Erich Honecker and considered as an integrally positive figure instrumental in shaping a distinctive GDR socialist tradition.203

• 204 Overall, the research on feudalism at both departments were overlapping or resembling research fiel (...)
• 205 See University Archive of Humboldt University, Institut für deutsche Geschichte, Nr. 77, Perspektiv (...)
• 206 See Research work by Gloger, Berthold, Woywodt, Roß, Köpstein, Schuppan, Zeitschrift für Geschichts (...)
• 207 See also Simon Groth, Der Feudalismus als Zukunft der Vergangenheit, in, Der geschichtliche Ort der (...)

45Although Feudalism became the main teaching and research topic in medieval studies, differentiating between German and general history of the Middle Ages presented a methodological challenge.204 According to the materialistic understanding of history, research must reveal the laws of historical development through the example of feudal society.205 According to these laws of history, social conditions were characterized by an increase in urban class conflicts and upheavals of peasants, which had to lead to a revolutionary turnaround.206 Other historians saw feudalism as the product of an arbitrary classification and fragmentation of the historical processes, stemming from a materialist model of investigating and an ideologically biased interpretation.207 Was this representation of feudalism as a cornerstone in the edifice of an East German “version” of history able to integrate other perspectives?

• 208 Jürgen Kuczynski, Zur Periodisierung der deutschen Geschichte in der Feudalzeit, Zeitschrift für Ge (...)
• 209 Horst HAUN, Die erste Periodisierungsdiskussion in der Geschichtswissenschaft der DDR. Zur Beratung (...)
• 210 See also Albrecht Timm, Fach Geschichte, p.  43., Hartmut Bookmann, Das fünfzehnte Jahrhundert in d (...)
• 211 See Hans-Joachim Bartmuß, On the Emergence of the Early Feudal German State. A critical examination (...)
• 212 The department participated in the III Congress of the German Historical Society, which took place (...)
• 213 Full version of the paper by Professor Müller-Mertens in the anthology “Problems of the Early Middl (...)
• 214 See Jürgen Kuczynski, Zur Periodisierung der deutschen Geschichte in der Feudalzeit, Zeitschrift fü (...)
• 215 Debates were conducted in the “Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift” (EAZ); 1977 in the “Jahrb (...)

46The debate on the origin and nature of feudalism started as early as the 1950s.208 Initially, controversies arose between Marxist and non-Marxist historians during the meetings of the Scientific Council at the Museum of German History in 1953/54.209 The criticism addressed the fact that the economic aspect was considerably inflated, while the socio-political developments and the role of the church were overlooked. Albrecht Timm spoke of “economism”, a perspective entailing the danger of reducing historical contexts to economic processes, as was the case with medieval urbanisation downgraded into a merely socio-economic entity, dismissing its socio-historical foundation.210 The next stage in the feudalism debate involved Hans-Joachim Bartmuß and Eckhard Müller-Mertens and began in 1963. It concerned the emergence of the German Empire and the genesis of the feudal society.211 Müller-Mertens gave lectures on the “characteristics of feudalism in the history of the world”212 and authored articles on the origins of the feudal society213. As head of the Department of Historiography and of the Department of medieval studies at the Institute of German History, he was also responsible for the conception of the 6th grade history textbook. The Middle Ages and the Reformation were part of the curriculum. Müller-Mertens clearly set forth his ideas and took a critical stand on the study of feudalism. He argued that cultural history is neglected while the economic and social aspects are overrepresented. Great personalities and rulers should be promoted and treated as representatives of certain historical developments. Martin Luther, Thomas Münzer and Florian Geyer do not suffice; Charlemagne and the “Reich” (Empire) should also be considered in the presentation of general economic and social processes. History should not be of its famous personalities and portrayed entirely negatively; instead, economic-social history and cultural history should be interlinked.214 This discussion eventually expanded into a fundamental debate among different disciplines about the pre-capitalist social formations, which endured until 1989.215

• 216 Klaus Schroeder, Der SED-Staat. Geschichte und Strukturen der DDR, München 1998.
• 217 If the concept of nationhood can be filled with life, citizens will serve the common cause out of i (...)
• 218 See Stefan Plaggenborg, Ordnung und Gewalt. Kemalismus – Faschismus – Sozialismus. München 2012. A (...)

47Starting with the mid-1970s, the materialistic historiography aimed at creating a new founding myth of the GDR. Medieval representations and historical personalities served in the SED policy to justify to the East German citizens a specific national project216 Feudalism as integrative concept was not able to forge the inner conviction of East German citizens.217 The myth of an original socialist nation, with its identifiable traditions rooted back to Feudalism, collapsed finally after thousands of people fleeing the GDR until the 1980s. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 was just the last drop of this long ongoing process of disintegration of a state without founding myth.218

• 219 Peter Segl, Mittelalterforschung, p. 113
• 220 For the whole paragraph see: Archive of Humboldt University, Faculty of Philosophy (after 1945), Nr (...)
• 221 Bernhard TÖPFER contributed essays entitled “Zur Frage nach dem Beginn der Neuzeit” (1968) and "Var (...)
• 222 See Bernhard TÖPFER, Zur Problematik der vorkapitalistischen Klassengesellschaften, Jahrbuch f. Wir (...)

50The debate on feudalism, its origins and causes pervaded socialist historiography.219 The first debates on the “periodisation of German history during the feudal period” as early as the beginning of the 1950s. Among the contested aspects were the problem of periodisation and that of pre-capitalist structures. History was defined as a process of legal succession of socio-economic formations. Therefore, the structural analysis of the individual formations and of the transitional situations were key elements. Within the Marxist conception of history, it was not simply about ordering and determining historical periods, but also about objectivity: these formations are objective phenomena and recognisable as such. Thus, medieval studies based on a Marxist understanding explored the transition from feudalism to capitalism.220 Eckhard Müller-Mertens remained controversial in the feudalism debates and in the various exchanges with Marxist historians, such as Ernst Engelberg or Hartmut Bartmuß. Müller-Mertens argued that the theses of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels on the medieval society and its paradigms must be contextualized and cannot be viewed as absolute and irreversible. Bernhard Töpfer also participated in the feudalism discussion, although not as controversially as Müller-Mertens.221 Töpfer was concerned with a more precise definition of the characteristics and historical classification of the feudal society, refusing to apply the concept of revolution to the transition from the ancient society to that of the Middle Ages. Töpfer was equally opposed the explanation of the German Reformation with the Peasants’ War as an instance of “early civil revolution”, maintaining instead that the Hussite movement of the 15th century was to be likewise understood as a reformatory movement. In his perspective, the events taking place in England during the seventh and eighth decades of the 14th century, the Hussite movement and the German Reformation (with the Peasants’ War) could be defined as “movements sui generis, but not as early bourgeois revolutions, such as the Marxist concept of Reformation defined it”.222

• 223 Urban History of the Feudal Epoch (Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte) by Prof. Dr. Bernhard Töpfer(...)
• 224 Research on feudalism in the succession of social formations continued to focus on the problems of (...)
• 225 Susan Reynolds, The Middle Ages Without Feudalism. Essays in Criticism and Comparison on the Mediev (...)
• 226 A conference was held at the Humboldt University. Konferenz vom 30.11.-1.12.1981 an der Humboldt-Un (...)

51Professor Töpfer and Professor Müller-Mertens gained scientific expertise in their own fields of interest and research, while teaching and publications on feudalism were part of their official liabilities.223 Such as the emergence and development of the German feudal state within the context of early European feudalism.224 The Marxist theses portrayed the medieval world around 1500 as an aggregate of relations between the class struggles and the religious ideologies. Great importance is attached to the relationship between the social and the national questions. The corresponding “bourgeois” conceptions of history, which see “the religious factor as the ultimate cause of historical developments”, are to be fought against. The confrontation with the “bourgeois” theories is one of the desiderata. The academic discourse about feudalism was of particular interest for Marxist historiography, with little echo in West Germany. This could partly be explained by the fact that in the 1970s the term feudalism was deemed unsuitable at the international level of research into medieval history and social order.225 Although attempts were made for the organisation of conferences with international participation, the debate was exported only to the Eastern European countries.226

• 227 See Beschluss des Zentralkomitees der Sozialistischen Einheitspartei Deutschlands 1955, p.  513.
• 228 See Henry Krisch, Der Wandel der politischen Kultur und politischen Stabilität in der DDR, in Gert- (...)
• 229 See Simon Groth, Der Feudalismus als Zukunft der Vergangenheit, in Der geschichtliche Ort der histo (...)
• 230 Simon Groth, Feudalismus, p. 163-164.
• 231 Ibid, p. 172-175.
• 232 Stefan Plaggenborg, Jörg Baborowski et al., Revolution, Krieg, und die Geburt von Staat und Nation, (...)

52The political developments of the 1950 and early 1960s in both German states and on the European level were present in the curriculum of medieval history studies at the Humboldt University. Firstly, it was demanded by the political guidelines of the SED: “Imperialistic attitudes and actions” had to be combated ideologically on the political and historical field. In the perspective of materialistic understanding of history, historical figures such as Charlemagne (Otto the First or Frederick Barbarossa) and his pan-European activities correspond to contemporary developments in West Germany and their “imperialistic” allies. It was argued that these “imperialistic forces” attempt – in the same way as Charlemagne pursued – to gain European wide control. These “scientific correlations” between medieval history and contemporary developments reinforced the SED’s view on supranationalisation in Europe as a menace for the East-German state. In these political constellations, medieval history gained relevance as an ideologically grounded model of interpretation from the 1950s to the mid-1960s to the SED state policies.227 The SED opposed its idea of Germany as “One State - One Nation” to the anti-model of “Imperialist Occident/Western Integration - Dissolution of the Nation”. A further shift in the national concept took place under President Erich Honecker, who, in 1971, put forth a new slogan: “Two States - Two Nations”.228 The creation of a socialist nation called the GDR as opposed to an imperialistic West German nation (FRG), was part of the agenda: The seeds of the socialist nation of the GDR could be traced back to feudalism.229 History had become a functional element of the state, while the SED party and the research community became entwined in their mutual instrumentalization.230 A rational explanation of history231 – as history proved – was not enough. Feudalism was unable to serve as a founding myth of the GDR. The disintegration of the state without founding myth232 accelerated until its implosions in 1989.

• 233 See Bernhard Töpfer, Feudalismus-Debatte, Wolfgang Fritz Haug (ed.), Historisch-kritisches Wörterbu (...)
• 234 See Simon Groth, Mediävistische Wissenschaftsgeschichte. Eine Bestandsaufnahme. De Gruyter. doi: 10 (...)

53Contemporary research on feudalism is conducted from the historiographical point of view with different perspectives233. New approaches reflect on the history of medieval studies as a science about the Middle Ages234. These approaches may shed light on the present representations of the Middle Ages and their role in contemporary society.