Playing with the ‘Erbe’: The Legacy of the Songs of the 1848 Revolution in the GDR

After the twelve-year rupture caused by the Nazis, in the Soviet zone after 1945 attempts were made to reconnect with the traditions of workers’ songs and critical folk songs that were viewed as the cultural heritage of the communist movement. One of these ‘repertoires’ of song was that of the 1848 Revolution. In the 1950s GDR researchers such as the Germanist Bruno Kaiser, the musicologist Inge Lammel and in particular the folklorist Wolfgang Steinitz made substantial contributions to the collecting and publication of the 1848 songs. Their work provided an important reference point for the singers of the German folk song revival in the GDR from the late 1970s onwards. As the cases of groups such as Folkländer and Wacholder showed, theirs was a particularly creative appropriation of the revolutionary Erbe that involved performing protest songs of the past as if they were criticising the present.

AHRC-DFG Project "Songs of the Revolution of 1848 and their Reception History in Germany"

This on-line project consists of commentaries and critical editions of the songs of the 'Vormaerz' and the 1848 Revolution which have shaped the cultural memory of this period in Germany. Looking at both textual and musical developments the research deals with the history of reception of key 1848 songs by established as well as anonymous poets. These together have formed an enduring corpus in the repertoires of singers of German political song. One of the main findings is how songs are not static: they evolve musically and textually and can undergo changes of function during a process of historical reception which is often ideologically motivated.

Oppositional Political Identity in the Song Culture of the Vormärz and the 1848 Revolution in Germany

Historically political song has often been perceived negatively, as a disturbance of the peace, summed up by the legendary line from Goethe’s Faust: “Politisches Lied – ein garstiges Lied”. In the period in Germany of the Vormärz (from 1815 up to the revolution of March 1848), however, we see how this perception may be changing as it increasingly becomes a means of self-expression in public life. This was the era of restauration, in which broader sections of German society are striving for political emancipation from the princes and kings. A whole host of political themes emerge in the songs (Freiheitslieder) of that period in which a new oppositional political consciousness is reflected. The themes range from freedom of speech, freedom from censorship, and the need for democratic and national self-determination to critiques of injustice and hunger, and parodies of political convention and opportunism. Sources of reception give indications about the social and political milieus in which these songs circulated. Such sources include broadsheets, handwritten manuscripts, song collections, commemoration events, advertisements in political press, memoires, police reports and general literature of the time. In many cases we see how these songs reflect the emerging social and political identities of those who sing them. One also sees the use of well known melodies in the popular dissemination of these songs. An intertextual function of music often becomes apparent in the practice of contrefacture whereby melodies with particular semantic associations are used to either underline the message or parody the subject of the song.

The limits of democracy: Ireland 1778-1848

A survey of the use of the term democracy in Irish politics in the late eighteenth and early ninetenth centuries

Prevalence of refractive error in Europe: the European Eye Epidemiology (E3) Consortium

To estimate the prevalence of refractive error in adults across Europe. Refractive data (mean spherical equivalent) collected between 1990 and 2013 from fifteen population-based cohort and cross-sectional studies of the European Eye Epidemiology (E³) Consortium were combined in a random effects meta-analysis stratified by 5-year age intervals and gender. Participants were excluded if they were identified as having had cataract surgery, retinal detachment, refractive surgery or other factors that might influence refraction. Estimates of refractive error prevalence were obtained including the following classifications: myopia ≤−0.75 diopters (D), high myopia ≤−6D, hyperopia ≥1D and astigmatism ≥1D. Meta-analysis of refractive error was performed for 61,946 individuals from fifteen studies with median age ranging from 44 to 81 and minimal ethnic variation (98 % European ancestry). The age-standardised prevalences (using the 2010 European Standard Population, limited to those ≥25 and <90 years old) were: myopia 30.6 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 30.4–30.9], high myopia 2.7 % (95 % CI 2.69–2.73), hyperopia 25.2 % (95 % CI 25.0–25.4) and astigmatism 23.9 % (95 % CI 23.7–24.1). Age-specific estimates revealed a high prevalence of myopia in younger participants [47.2 % (CI 41.8–52.5) in 25–29 years-olds]. Refractive error affects just over a half of European adults. The greatest burden of refractive error is due to myopia, with high prevalence rates in young adults. Using the 2010 European population estimates, we estimate there are 227.2 million people with myopia across Europe.

Increasing Prevalence of Myopia in Europe and the Impact of Education

PURPOSE: To investigate whether myopia is becoming more common across Europe and explore whether increasing education levels, an important environmental risk factor for myopia, might explain any temporal trend.

DESIGN: Meta-analysis of population-based, cross-sectional studies from the European Eye Epidemiology (E(3)) Consortium.

PARTICIPANTS: The E(3) Consortium is a collaborative network of epidemiological studies of common eye diseases in adults across Europe. Refractive data were available for 61 946 participants from 15 population-based studies performed between 1990 and 2013; participants had a range of median ages from 44 to 78 years.

METHODS: Noncycloplegic refraction, year of birth, and highest educational level achieved were obtained for all participants. Myopia was defined as a mean spherical equivalent ≤-0.75 diopters. A random-effects meta-analysis of age-specific myopia prevalence was performed, with sequential analyses stratified by year of birth and highest level of educational attainment.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Variation in age-specific myopia prevalence for differing years of birth and educational level.

RESULTS: There was a significant cohort effect for increasing myopia prevalence across more recent birth decades; age-standardized myopia prevalence increased from 17.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.6-18.1) to 23.5% (95% CI, 23.2-23.7) in those born between 1910 and 1939 compared with 1940 and 1979 (P = 0.03). Education was significantly associated with myopia; for those completing primary, secondary, and higher education, the age-standardized prevalences were 25.4% (CI, 25.0-25.8), 29.1% (CI, 28.8-29.5), and 36.6% (CI, 36.1-37.2), respectively. Although more recent birth cohorts were more educated, this did not fully explain the cohort effect. Compared with the reference risk of participants born in the 1920s with only primary education, higher education or being born in the 1960s doubled the myopia prevalence ratio-2.43 (CI, 1.26-4.17) and 2.62 (CI, 1.31-5.00), respectively-whereas individuals born in the 1960s and completing higher education had approximately 4 times the reference risk: a prevalence ratio of 3.76 (CI, 2.21-6.57).

CONCLUSIONS: Myopia is becoming more common in Europe; although education levels have increased and are associated with myopia, higher education seems to be an additive rather than explanatory factor. Increasing levels of myopia carry significant clinical and economic implications, with more people at risk of the sight-threatening complications associated with high myopia.