'Hätte der Hund nicht, dann hätt’ er den Hasen ...' : Rhetorik erzählter Geschichte in Günter Grass Mein Jahrhundert

Günter Grass’s Mein Jahrhundert represents the 20th century as a series of hundred anecdotes, narrated from the perspective of in many cases unknown or (seemingly) unidentified witnesses. As such, it is often read as an example of fictional history writing within Grass’s encompassing framework of rediscovering the lives of those who underwent history rather than make it. The »sequential communal narration« (Lanser) adopted in this book was, however, criticized harshly by many readers as a patronizing form of postmodern – narrative – historiography. This article aims to show that the oral configuration of the narrative and the consistent use of a silent editor role, rhetorically directing the narrative and systematically linking the narrative with verifiable historical events and persons, does not reinforce the fictionality of writing history, but on the contrary underpins the double attempt to display not only the bias of historical witnessing, but also the historicity (and selectivity) of recording history. Grass’s bringing in the silent editor hence must be seen as an (hyperrealistic) attempt to stem the tide of negationism, revisionism and the manipulation of history telling.Günter Grass’s Mein Jahrhundert represents the 20th century as a series of hundred anecdotes, narrated from the perspective of in many cases unknown or (seemingly) unidentified witnesses. As such, it is often read as an example of fictional history writing within Grass’s encompassing framework of rediscovering the lives of those who underwent history rather than make it. The »sequential communal narration« (Lanser) adopted in this book was, however, criticized harshly by many readers as a patronizing form of postmodern – narrative – historiography. This article aims to show that the oral configuration of the narrative and the consistent use of a silent editor role, rhetorically directing the narrative and systematically linking the narrative with verifiable historical events and persons, does not reinforce the fictionality of writing history, but on the contrary underpins the double attempt to display not only the bias of historical witnessing, but also the historicity (and selectivity) of recording history. Grass’s bringing in the silent editor hence must be seen as an (hyperrealistic) attempt to stem the tide of negationism, revisionism and the manipulation of history telling.B