Your basket is currently empty!
Category: Culture
-
The French Riviera of yesteryear
Louis XIV organised the siege of Nice under the command of the Duke of La Feuillade. From 9 to 22 December 1705, the castle of Nice was bombarded relentlessly by 60 cannons and 24 mortars. More than 10,000 bombs and 120,000 cannonballs were fired at the castle during the siege, resulting in between 700 and 800 deaths and injuries. It was not until 4 January 1706 that the Marquis de Caraglio, commander of the citadel of Nice and governor of the county of Nice, surrendered.
-
Varian Fry โ From Berlin to Marseille
in german below:
A life between observation and responsibility
When Varian Fry traveled to Europe aboard the transatlantic liner Bremen in 1935, he was still a young journalist, driven by curiosity, acumen, and an incorruptible eye for the political tensions of his time. Even during the crossing, among diplomats, businesspeople, and emigrants, he heard conversations about Hitler’s job creation programs, currency controls, and growing anti-Semitism. It was a premonition of what awaited him on the continent.
In Berlin, he took up residence at the Hotel-Pension Stern on Kurfรผrstendamm, a middle-class establishment in the heart of the capital. There, in the breakfast rooms, amid the rustling of newspapers, he conducted his first interviews: politicians who were still wavering between loyalty and inner resistance, business leaders who saw the regime as both a threat and an opportunity, and university lecturers who were torn between academic caution and open ideological loyalty. But Fry didn’t just listen to the voices of the elites. He spoke to shopkeepers who reported boycott actions, to waiters who whispered about guests who had disappeared, to churchgoers who described the pressure on their pastors, and to taxi drivers whose sober cynicism often contained more truth than the official slogans.
Kurfรผrstendamm became a burning mirror for Fry. Elegant strolling and intimidation by SA men existed side by side. One evening, he got caught up in a street battle: students were protesting against Gleichschaltung, and SA men were dispersing them with boots and batons. Fry, who only wanted to observe, was drawn into the melee. He escaped, but not without injuries โ and not without an image of the violence he later described so vividly. Berlin had shown him how deeply ideology, fear, and violence had already penetrated everyday life.
When Fry was sent to Marseille in 1940 on behalf of the Emergency Rescue Committee after the Wehrmacht invaded France, he was prepared. What he had only observed in Berlin now determined his actions: saving people who were on the Gestapo’s blacklists.
Marseille, the last major port in unoccupied France, was a place of both hope and despair. Refugees from all over Europe flocked thereโwriters, artists, scientists, political dissidents. Fry worked under the guise of a journalist, but his real mission was to organize a rescue operation that was both improvised and life-threatening.
His team was a diverse bunch: Miriam Davenport, the art historian; Mary Jayne Gold, a wealthy American who contributed money and courage; Daniel Bรฉnรฉdite, the French trade unionist who maintained contacts with officials and workers; and later also the young economist Albert Hirschman, who forged passports and organized escape routes. Together, they saved hundreds of people, including Marc Chagall, Heinrich Mann, Lion Feuchtwanger, Max Ernst, Hannah Arendt, and many others whose work shaped the cultural memory of the 20th century.
The cooperation of the US was ambivalent. The Emergency Rescue Committee had sent him, but Washington kept its distance: officially, it did not want to risk a confrontation with Vichy France or Berlin. Fry therefore operated in a gray area, tolerated but viewed with suspicion. France also showed two faces: individual officials helped quietly, but the Vichy administration cooperated closely with the Germans and handed over refugees. It was only through bribery, forgery, and secret networks that Fry was able to continue his work.
From Marseille, his contacts also extended to the Cรดte d’Azur: to Nice and Sanary-sur-Mer, where German exiles had been living since the early 1930sโHeinrich and Thomas Mann, Lion Feuchtwanger, Franz Werfel, Alma Mahler-Werfel, and many others. Fry built on these structures, helping with onward transport, organizing visas and ship passages to Spain and Portugal. In this way, he connected the escape routes along the coast with the rescue routes in Marseille.
But in 1941, Vichy put an end to his work. Fry was expelled, exhausted and plagued by guilt because he could not save everyone. Back in New York, he reported on his experiences and wrote his book Surrender on Demand in 1945, but it went unnoticed for a long time. In the early post-war years, America did not want to be reminded of that period of inaction, when individuals had shown more courage than states. Fry himself lived on the fringes of the intellectual scene, scarred by what he had experienced.
It was not until decades later that he received the recognition he deserved. In 1996, Yad Vashem honored him as the first American with the title โRighteous Among the Nations.โ Today, France and Germany also remember the โAmerican Schindler,โ who acted not out of political calculation but out of moral clarity.
Varian Fry was both an observer and an actor. In Berlin, he had learned to see behind the facades; in Marseille, he had taken action; in the US, he had fought for remembrance. His life journeyโfrom the salons of the ocean liner Bremen to the Pension Stern on Kurfรผrstendamm to the improvised rescue offices in Marseilleโis testimony to the fact that even a single individual can take responsibility in the face of violence.
in german:
Varian Fry – Von Berlin nach Marseille
Ein Leben zwischen Beobachtung und Verantwortung
Als Varian Fry 1935 an Bord des Transatlantikliners Bremen nach Europa reiste, war er noch ein junger Journalist, getrieben von Neugier, Scharfsinn und einem unbestechlichen Blick fรผr die politischen Spannungen seiner Zeit. Schon auf der รberfahrt, zwischen Diplomaten, Geschรคftsleuten und Emigranten, hรถrte er Gesprรคche รผber Hitlers Arbeitsbeschaffungsprogramme, รผber Devisenkontrollen und รผber den wachsenden Antisemitismus. Es war eine Vorahnung dessen, was ihn auf dem Kontinent erwartete.
In Berlin bezog er Quartier in der Hotel-Pension Stern am Kurfรผrstendamm, einem bรผrgerlichen Haus im Herzen der Hauptstadt. Dort, in den Frรผhstรผcksrรคumen, beim Rascheln der Zeitungen, fรผhrte er seine ersten Interviews: Politiker, die noch zwischen Loyalitรคt und innerem Widerstand schwankten, Wirtschaftsfรผhrer, die im Regime ebenso Bedrohung wie Chance sahen, und Universitรคtsdozenten, die zwischen akademischer Vorsicht und offener Ideologietreue lavierten. Doch Fry hรถrte nicht nur den Stimmen der Eliten zu. Er sprach mit Ladenbesitzern, die von Boykottaktionen berichteten, mit Kellnern, die im Flรผsterton von verschwundenen Gรคsten erzรคhlten, mit Kirchenbesuchern, die den Druck auf ihre Pfarrer schilderten, und mit Taxichauffeuren, deren nรผchterner Zynismus oft mehr Wahrheit enthielt als die offiziellen Parolen.
Der Kurfรผrstendamm wurde fรผr Fry zu einem Brennspiegel. Elegantes Flanieren und Einschรผchterung durch SA-Mรคnner existierten nebeneinander. Eines Abends geriet er in eine Straรenschlacht: Studenten protestierten gegen die Gleichschaltung, SA-Mรคnner trieben sie mit Stiefeln und Schlagstรถcken auseinander. Fry, der nur beobachten wollte, wurde in das Getรผmmel hineingezogen. Er entkam, aber nicht ohne Verletzungen โ und nicht ohne ein Bild jener Gewalt, die er spรคter so eindringlich beschrieb. Berlin hatte ihm gezeigt, wie tief Ideologie, Angst und Gewalt bereits in den Alltag eingedrungen waren.
Als Fry 1940, nach dem Einmarsch der Wehrmacht in Frankreich, im Auftrag des Emergency Rescue Committee nach Marseille entsandt wurde, war er vorbereitet. Was er in Berlin nur beobachtet hatte, bestimmte nun sein Handeln: Menschen retten, die auf den schwarzen Listen der Gestapo standen.
Marseille, der letzte groรe Hafen im unbesetzten Frankreich, war ein Ort der Hoffnung und Verzweiflung zugleich. Flรผchtlinge aus ganz Europa strรถmten dorthin โ Schriftsteller, Kรผnstler, Wissenschaftler, politische Dissidenten. Fry arbeitete unter dem Deckmantel eines Journalisten, doch sein eigentlicher Auftrag war die Organisation einer Rettungsmaschine, die zugleich improvisiert und lebensgefรคhrlich war.
Sein Team war bunt zusammengesetzt: Miriam Davenport, die Kunsthistorikerin; Mary Jayne Gold, eine wohlhabende Amerikanerin, die Geld und Mut beisteuerte; Daniel Bรฉnรฉdite, der franzรถsische Gewerkschafter, der Kontakte zu Beamten und Arbeitern hielt; spรคter auch der junge รkonom Albert Hirschman, der Pรคsse fรคlschte und Fluchtwege organisierte. Gemeinsam retteten sie Hunderte โ unter ihnen Marc Chagall, Heinrich Mann, Lion Feuchtwanger, Max Ernst, Hannah Arendt und viele andere, deren Werk das kulturelle Gedรคchtnis des 20. Jahrhunderts prรคgt.
Die Kooperation der USA war ambivalent. Das Emergency Rescue Committee hatte ihn entsandt, doch Washington hielt Distanz: Offiziell wollte man keine Konfrontation mit Vichy-Frankreich oder Berlin riskieren. Fry agierte daher im Graubereich, geduldet, aber misstrauisch beรคugt. Auch Frankreich zeigte zwei Gesichter: Einzelne Beamte halfen im Stillen, doch die Vichy-Administration kooperierte eng mit den Deutschen und lieferte Flรผchtlinge aus. Nur durch Bestechungen, Fรคlschungen und heimliche Netzwerke gelang es Fry, seine Arbeit fortzufรผhren.
Von Marseille aus reichten seine Kontakte auch an die Cรดte dโAzur: nach Nizza und nach Sanary-sur-Mer, wo bereits seit den frรผhen 1930er Jahren deutsche Exilanten lebten โ Heinrich und Thomas Mann, Lion Feuchtwanger, Franz Werfel, Alma Mahler-Werfel und viele andere. Fry knรผpfte an diese Strukturen an, half beim Weitertransport, organisierte Visa und Schiffspassagen nach Spanien und Portugal. So verband er die Fluchtwege an der Kรผste mit den Rettungsrouten in Marseille.
Doch 1941 setzte Vichy seiner Arbeit ein Ende. Fry wurde ausgewiesen, ausgelaugt und von Schuldgefรผhlen geplagt, weil er nicht alle retten konnte. Zurรผck in New York berichtete er, schrieb 1945 sein Buch Surrender on Demand, doch es blieb lange unbeachtet. Amerika wollte in den ersten Nachkriegsjahren nicht erinnert werden an jene Zeit der Untรคtigkeit, als Einzelne mehr Mut gezeigt hatten als Staaten. Fry selbst lebte am Rande der intellektuellen Szene, gezeichnet von dem, was er erlebt hatte.
Erst Jahrzehnte spรคter erhielt er die Anerkennung, die ihm gebรผhrte. 1996 ehrte ihn Yad Vashem als ersten Amerikaner mit dem Titel โGerechter unter den Vรถlkernโ. Auch in Frankreich und Deutschland erinnert man heute an den โamerikanischen Schindlerโ, der nicht aus politischem Kalkรผl, sondern aus moralischer Klarheit handelte.
Varian Fry war Beobachter und Akteur zugleich. In Berlin hatte er gelernt, hinter die Fassaden zu sehen, in Marseille hatte er gehandelt, in den USA hatte er fรผr Erinnerung gestritten. Sein Lebensweg โ von den Salons des Linienschiffs Bremen รผber die Pension Stern am Kurfรผrstendamm bis zu den improvisierten Rettungsbรผros in Marseille โ ist ein Zeugnis dafรผr, dass auch ein Einzelner im Angesicht der Gewalt Verantwortung รผbernehmen kann.
Photo:Varian Fry in Marseille. Frankreich, 1940โ1941 in Marseille. US Holocaust Memorial Museum, courtesy of Annette Fry
-
The Salon of Economics
The Salon of Economics
A play in five scenes
Characters
David Ricardo โ sober theorist, speaks concisely, emphatically, almost like a maths teacher
- Karl Marx โ passionate, boisterous, with powerful gestures
- Thomas Robert Malthus โ sombre, solemn, with the tone of a preacher
- John Stuart Mill โ calm, conciliatory, clear and moral
- Alfred Marshall โ analytical, level-headed, with an instructive tone
- John Maynard Keynes โ elegant, ironic, moves casually, almost dance-like
- Schumpeter, Hayek, Sismondi โ hecklers, designed as a chorus
Stage design
A Victorian salon: dark wood panelling, heavy curtains, a log fire, globe, leather armchairs. Manuscripts, quills and glasses of wine lie on the tables. The light is warm, dominated by candles and the fireplace.
Scene I โ The cloth and the wine
Stage direction: Ricardo stands by the globe, cane in hand. He speaks without making eye contact, staring at the map as if it were an equation. Marx sits restlessly, drumming his fingers, ready to explode.
Ricardo (dryly, with clear emphasis, pointing with his cane):
England โ cloth. Portugal โ wine. Exchange. Advantage for both. It’s that simple.Marx (jumps up, voice loud, gestures widely):
That simple? You forget the worker! He spins the cloth, he presses the wine โ and starves. Your mathematics is a veil over blood and sweat.Malthus (rises slowly, speaks solemnly, both hands raised like a preacher):
You argue about bread and wine, but hunger remains. The population is growing faster than food supplies. Misery is no accident, it is a law of nature.Stage direction: Silence. Only the crackling of the fireplace. The characters look down at the floor, shocked.
Scene II โ Hope and Illusion
Mill (steps forward, calm, palms open to the audience):
Mr Malthus, you paint too bleak a picture. Progress is possible. Education, institutions, democracy โ they can alleviate poverty.Marx (cutting, pointing his finger at Mill):
Alleviate, yes โ but never cure. You polish chains, Mr Mill. But chains remain chains.Marshall (stands up slowly, speaks like a lecturer, hands clasped behind his back):
The market is not a machine. It thrives on habits, trust, human psychology. We economists must understand people โ not just numbers.Stage direction: Mill nods thoughtfully, Marx snorts contemptuously, Malthus turns away as if he does not want to hear the conversation.
Scene III โ The gentleman with the sherry
Stage direction: Suddenly, a door opens. A beam of light falls on Keynes, who casually enters with a glass of sherry. He walks slowly to the fireplace as if he were in his own home.
Keynes (ironically, voice slightly playful):
Oh, the voices of the 19th century! I come from the 20th โ wars, stock market crashes, armies of unemployed. Believe me: markets do not heal. Without the state: ruin.Ricardo (stamps his cane on the floor, indignant):
And you believe civil servants can calculate better than markets?Keynes (takes a sip, leans back relaxed against the fireplace):
Not better at calculating โ but at acting when inaction kills. During the Depression, waiting didn’t help, only intervention did. The state โ the doctor of capitalism.Marx (laughs bitterly, raises both arms):
A doctor who nurses the disease! Mr Keynes, you are not the healer โ you are the personal physician of dying capital.Stage direction: Keynes smiles charmingly, as if he has heard the accusation a thousand times before.
Scene IV โ The hecklers
Stage direction: Light on the second row, where three figures are sitting. They speak alternately, sometimes all at once.
Schumpeter (almost ecstatic, arms spread wide):
You talk of balance! But capitalism is destruction โ creative destruction! The entrepreneur tears down the old and creates the new.Hayek (cutting, with raised index finger):
And woe betide the state that believes it can control this chaos. Planning is presumption. Freedom is order โ even if it looks like chaos.Sismondi (quietly, pleadingly, stepping forward):
But who protects the people who are drowning in chaos? Without morality, your market will become a slaughterhouse.Scene V โ The Echo
Stage direction: Everyone steps forward into a semicircle. Each calls out their line into the darkness of the auditorium, first individually, then overlapping, until a chorus emerges. The light flickers, the fireplace goes out.
Ricardo (loud, authoritative): Trade is reason!
Marx (thundering): Capital is domination!
Malthus (gloomy, solemn): Nature is limitation!
Mill (clear, moral): Reform is duty!
Marshall (calm, analytical): Markets are organisms!
Keynes (ironic, almost dance-like): The state is doctor!
Schumpeter (enthusiastic): Destruction is creation!
Hayek (sharp): Freedom is chaos!
Sismondi (pleading): Morality is necessity!Stage direction: The voices overlap, become louder, chaotic, then abruptly silent. Only a faint echo remains. The lights go out.
Curtain.
KK
-
Thomas Mann on Wagner, Nietzsche and Freud
Thomas Mann on Wagner, Nietzsche, and Freud โ Germanness as reflected in modernity
When Thomas Mann speaks, people listen โ not only because of the elegance of his language, but also because of his sharp insight into German culture. In his lecture on Richard Wagner on February 10, 1933, he ventured an interpretation that removed the composer from the sphere of nationalistic veneration and placed him in the vicinity of another authority that was just beginning to take effect: Sigmund Freud’s new ideas.
Thomas Mann portrays Richard Wagner as an artist of a broken modernity, as a figure who does not rest in sublimity but is marked by inner conflicts. The excess, the pathos, the ecstatic exaggeration of his music appear to Mann as symptoms of a psychological struggle โ an expression of the unconscious that Freud had made visible for the first time.
In this interpretation, Wagner’s โGermannessโ is not understood as a proud, flawless force, but as a spiritual fabric of greatness and illness, of creative vision and corrosive self-analysis. For Mann, Wagner is not a national saint, but the first great representative of a modern, self-questioning Germany.
But Thomas Mann did not stop at psychoanalytic interpretation. He drew further parallels โ to Friedrich Nietzsche, the philosopher who was initially ardently devoted to the โMaster of Bayreuthโ before turning away from him in a radical break. For Mann, this relationship was particularly revealing: Nietzsche recognized in Wagner’s intoxication, demonism, and excess the danger of exaggeration that could tip over into pathology.
In Nice, where Mann lived for a time, he sensed the same tension between illness and creation that Nietzsche had experienced so vividly in the south. Nice, with its light and its vastness, became a contrasting image for both of themโa place of recovery and clarity, but also of painful self-observation. For Mann, Wagner embodied the abysmal German, while Nietzsche represented the critical, clarifying authority that rejected this legacy and at the same time transformed it creatively.
But Thomas Mann himself was always reflected in this constellation. Like Wagner, he saw himself as an artist who drew inspiration from inner turmoil. The โbourgeois solidityโ he embodied outwardly only partially concealed the abysses and ambivalences that nourished his work. From Nietzsche, he adopted the role of the self-analyst who recognizes weakness, critically penetrates it, and thereby overcomes it.
In Nice, in the light of the Cรดte d’Azur, this self-interpretation became particularly clear to Mann. The south made him realize that Germanness was not only fate, but also a task: to reflect on it critically, to name its dangers, and to transform it from within. Wagner, Nietzsche, and Freud were not mere points of reference for him, but reflections of his own existence.
This lecture on Wagner thus goes far beyond music. It proves to be a key text on Thomas Mann’s journey from defender of the โGerman essenceโ in Reflections of an Unpolitical Man to sharp critic who opposed National Socialism in exile. What began in Nice in reflections on Wagner and Nietzsche found its conclusion in a clear rejection of self-destructive Germanness.
Thomas Mann’s interpretation of Wagner is a document of intellectual self-discovery: the linking of music, philosophy, and psychoanalysis into a triad of modernityโand at the same time the confession of a poet who recognized his own destiny in the mirror of Wagner and Nietzsche.
-
Renรฉ Schickele โ Zwischen Schwarzwald und Cรดte dโAzur
Renรฉ Schickele โ Zwischen Schwarzwald und Cรดte dโAzur
Ein Literat im Exil und seine Begegnungen mit der europรคischen BohรจmeRenรฉ Schickele, deutsch-franzรถsischer Schriftsteller, Publizist und รผberzeugter Europรคer, verbrachte die letzten Jahre seines Lebens zwischen drei sehr unterschiedlichen, aber fรผr ihn prรคgenden Orten: dem Kurort Badenweiler im Schwarzwald, dem pittoresken Sanary-sur-Mer in Sรผdfrankreich und der Hafenstadt Nizza.
Nach der Machtergreifung der Nationalsozialisten 1933 musste Schickele Deutschland verlassen. Badenweiler, wo er in den 1920er-Jahren zeitweise gelebt hatte und im Austausch mit anderen Intellektuellen stand, wurde fรผr ihn zu einem Ort der Erinnerung โ ein Rรผckzugsort, an den er spรคter nur noch gedanklich zurรผckkehren konnte.
Das eigentliche Zentrum seines Exils wurde jedoch Sanary-sur-Mer, ein kleines Fischerdorf in der Provence, das in den 1930er-Jahren zu einem Sammelpunkt deutschsprachiger Exilanten und europรคischer Kรผnstler wurde. Hier traf Schickele auf eine illustre Gesellschaft: Schriftsteller wie Thomas Mann, Lion Feuchtwanger und Franz Werfel suchten ebenso Schutz vor dem politischen Klima wie Kรผnstlerinnen und Kรผnstler der bildenden Kunst. Auch Erwin Piscator, der Theaterreformer, und Alma Mahler-Werfel gehรถrten zum Kreis. In den Cafรฉs und an den Uferpromenaden Sanarys wurden politische Fragen ebenso intensiv diskutiert wie literarische Projekte โ ein geistiger Freiraum, den die Exilierten dringend brauchten.
Fรผr Schickele war Sanary nicht nur ein Ort der Zuflucht, sondern auch ein Treffpunkt fรผr den europรคischen Dialog. In Gesprรคchen mit Feuchtwanger oder den Manns vertiefte er seine Vorstellung eines รผbernationalen, humanistischen Europas โ ein Leitgedanke, der sich wie ein roter Faden durch sein Werk zog.
Spรคter zog es ihn weiter nach Nizza, wo er die milden Winter an der Cรดte dโAzur verbrachte. Hier verschlechterte sich jedoch sein Gesundheitszustand, und die politische Lage in Europa lieร ihm keine Ruhe. Trotz der bedrรผckenden Umstรคnde arbeitete er weiter an Essays und Artikeln, in denen er vor den Gefahren des Nationalismus warnte.
Renรฉ Schickele starb 1940 in Vence bei Nizza. Sein Lebensweg zwischen Badenweiler, Sanary-sur-Mer und Nizza spiegelt nicht nur das Schicksal vieler europรคischer Intellektueller im Exil wider, sondern steht auch fรผr den Versuch, in Zeiten der Zerstรถrung eine geistige Heimat zu bewahren.
-
Statutes and bureaucracy in 1851
The Albrecht-Dรผrer-Verein would have risen to its zenith “if a narrow-minded adherence to bourgeois statutes, greed and envy had not always worked against free artistic development. It was recognised that these statutes were in part suitable for a local association, but by no means for a projected central art association. However, what was done to remedy the problem did not contribute to the prosperity of the whole, on the contrary, the promising bloom was destroyed; new statutes were created, some of which became even more impractical, even dangerous, and caused much confusion and annoyance. The promises made to the members could not be fulfilled, the lack of money for honorary expenses was claimed to be insufficient for such a large association, etc., without considering that the income is always in proportion to the growing number of members, and that on occasions where the honour and reputation of the association is at stake, buckling and saving can only bring harm.”