1 Introduction

Otto Höfler (1901–1987) is one of the most controversial personalities in the history of Scandinavian studies and Germanische Altertumskunde (Germanic antiquity studies).1 An Austrian scholar whose early and later career centred on the University of Vienna, Höfler spent many years teaching and working in Sweden and Germany. He devoted himself to a wide range of topics, encompassing multiple disciplines: from philology, history and history of religions to folklore studies, cultural morphology and historical linguistics.2 Yet his research is particularly centred around the Germanen (›Germanic peoples‹) and the exploration of ›Germanic culture‹. He is especially known for his theory on Germanic Männerbünde or Geheimbünde (men’s bands or sacred men’s bands), which has been generally equated with his overall Germanenbild (characterisation of the ›Germanic peoples‹).3 His theory was first formulated in his postdoctoral thesis Kultische Geheimbünde der Germanen in 1934.4 His study centres on the significance of Germanic warrior cults, which he connects to medieval legends of the Wild Hunt and Furious Host and mythological figures such as the Old Norse einherjar. Perhaps his most contentious and well-known work, KGG is only one of many monographs and articles Höfler published on ›Germanic culture‹ throughout his career. Indeed, the Germanic warrior bands would remain a life-long interest of Höfler’s. His research, not only on Germanic Geheimbünde, has sparked heated scholarly discussion, foremost with respect to his questionable methodology, the ideological aspects of his work and his relationship with National Socialism. Numerous archive documents, in addition to his own public lectures during the 1930s and 1940s, confirm his sympathy for and involvement in the National Socialist movement and his contribution to the research initiatives of the ›Ahnenerbe‹ (Ancestral Heritage) of the SS (Schutzstaffel).5 Thus, Höfler was a controversial academic figure.

In 2018, a new edition of the first volume of KGG was published by the Traugott Bautz publishing house.6 This edition, which omits Höfler’s original foreword to the text, but includes a new introduction, unfortunately does not thematise Höfler’s involvement with the Third Reich in detail nor contextualise his work within the socio-political circumstances in which it was written. The edition serves as an example of the continued interest in his research, yet at the same time the need to address the ideological strains of his theses, his problematic methodologies and the reception of his research in general.

Overall, the reception and analysis of Höfler’s research in modern academic discourse can be divided into two separate camps. On the one hand, Höfler’s research is fundamentally rejected because of his involvement in the National Socialist movement and its ideological and political implications without looking deeper into the scholarly tradition behind and the potential relevance of some of his ideas. On the other hand, Höfler’s theories are often adopted by scholars at face value without thoroughly analysing their disputable methodological premises and the consequences of their ideological elements.7

The connection between Höfler’s research, völkisch ideology and the National Socialist movement cannot be ignored, especially with consideration of the current rise of right-wing political groups whose populist, nationalist rhetoric aligns with aspects of Höfler’s research. Magnified by the historical-academic lens, the critical examination of the influence of political and ideological movements in historical (and modern!) scholarship is of utmost importance, albeit a responsibility that should be taken seriously in order to teach ourselves, our students and future academics how to recognise and grapple with problematic, ideological methodologies and theses, especially when looking back at scholars working during the Third Reich. This is no easy task, in particular in the case of Otto Höfler.

It cannot be assumed that this — or any — study can be completely objective; and yet, its aim, while keeping his political sympathies ever close in mind, is to afford Höfler’s research and his general concept of ›Germanic culture‹ a new in-depth examination. Characterisations of the ›Germanic peoples‹ or reconstructions of ›Germanic culture‹ must be carefully studied from the perspectives of multiple disciplines, for a Germanenbild reflects the expectations and ideas of the person and the society wherein it has been constructed.8 Thus, the study of such characterisations opens up a fascinating possibility for a meaningful examination of a particular cultural consciousness. Höfler’s research represents such an endeavour, and a very meaningful one, as he lived during an era when opinions on the nature and history of the ›Germanic peoples‹ were of ideological and political significance. This thesis further aims to pinpoint singular elements of Höfler’s theories that continue to resonate in modern research. Any reader of Höfler’s research will soon recognise that one must use a proverbial sieve when examining his theories und sift through their contents, dividing emotionally-driven argumentation from viable, academic hypothesis. Thus, the following analysis will discuss, while exercising much caution, to what extent ideology and academic research are intertwined in Höfler’s works.

It would be incorrect to say that Höfler ›haunts‹ the Institute for Nordic Philology in Munich, Germany. Of course, the institute is not haunted by an old Austrian ghost, but its creation and its history are tied to his person, which sparked interest in the execution of the present study.9 Höfler occupied the then ›Seminar für Nordische Philologie und Germanische Altertumskunde‹ from the summer semester of 1954 to the summer of 1957.10 In the short time Höfler spent at the seminar, he built up its library, which is considered to be one of the most extensive libraries of medieval and modern Scandinavian literature outside of Scandinavia.11 Julia Zernack has emphasised how Höfler affected the institute’s beginnings during and after his tenure there; clearly, his belief in the strong relation between Scandinavian and German philology was not only embodied in the institute’s name, but also in the type of lectures and seminars offered from semester to semester.12 For example, Höfler held lectures and seminars on the »Ursprünge und germanische Frühformen des Dramatischen« (Origins and Early Germanic Forms of the Dramatic) and »Apokolyptische Dichtungen der Germanen« (Apocalyptic Poetry of the Germanic peoples), courses both held during the winter semester of 1954/55. Further, Höfler held a proseminar on Tacitus’s Germania and on early Germanic linguistic history (winter semester 55/56), followed by a lecture on »Die religiösen Grundlagen der altgermanischen Kultur« (The Religious Roots of Old Germanic Culture) in the summer semester of 1956.13 In recent years, although the additional title ›Germanische Altertumskunde‹ was removed from the institute in 2001, the interest in medieval Scandinavian literature in connection to the greater medieval Germanic tradition has persisted.14

The institute’s name has been changed, the library has been dismantled and centralised — and so too is it long since time to analyse Höfler’s research thoroughly and contextualise his theses in light of modern German and Scandinavian studies.

1.1 Otto Höfler: The ›Feuergeist‹

The present study must inevitably begin with an introduction to Otto Höfler’s life and academic career and a discussion of his political involvement leading up to and during the National Socialist era. The following analysis will separate these aspects for the purpose of ordered discussion, even though Höfler’s participation in the National Socialist movement is closely intertwined with his personal life and career path, as is discussed below.

Perhaps what makes Höfler such a contentious personality in his academic discipline are the various aspects of his person and his research that are difficult to compartmentalise. Höfler was moulded by the anti-Semitic, bourgeoise culture of Vienna of the early twentieth century, caught up and complicit in the inflammatory nationalist and völkisch dialogues of the inter-war period. He was also a widely-read academic, who was a specialist in his field, but was also knowledgeable of a wealth of literary and historical material from neighbouring disciplines, which he consistently tied into his comparative research approach. However, Höfler worked closely with members of the SS Ahnenerbe. He held several lectures in association with the Ahnenerbe and for the NSDAP (National Socialist German Workers’ Party) in general out of personal enthusiasm for the National Socialist movement. Yet, seeing...