The "Chronicle" of the „Brücke“ is a document of eminent importance in several respects. Superficially, it is the reason, though by no means the cause, for the dissolution of the “Brücke“. First tendencies towards a dissolution showed in administrative issues around 1910/11. For example, the list of passive members had not been updated since 1909/10, and perhaps such members were no longer canvassed; in 1912, the announced membership card was not executed and the annual bonus was not sent to the passive members. Writing a "chronicle" itself implies that something has been completed. The expulsion of Pechstein in 1912 weakened the group. The remaining artists felt that the idea of a group was rather debilitating, or at least not beneficial, for their own artistic path. Rosa Schapire described the condition "in the end only as a loose external connection". The above-mentioned reason for the dissolution was the text that Kirchner wrote on the history of the "Brücke". In a conversation with Hans Kinkel, Erich Heckel reported in 1958: "We were affronted by the text." (Hans Kinkel, Erich Heckel 75 Jahre alt. Ein Gespräch, in: Das Kunstwerk XII, 1958/59, issue 3) Other statements by Heckel are much more moderate but the same in tenor. In any case, it is a fact that the text was rejected by Erich Heckel, Otto Mueller and Karl Schmidt-Rottluff, which led Kirchner to leave the "Brücke" and the remaining members decided to dissolve it, about which they informed passive members on May 27, 1913. However, this decision not only dissolved the group, but also determined that the "Chronik" would not be published.
The "Chronik" is often mistakenly seen as the last joint work of the "Brücke", for example in the 1982 Hanover catalog (p. 46). However, it is not a "Brücke document" at all, even less a joint work, since it never appeared as a publication of the "Brücke". The text is a subjective expression of Kirchner's opinion. With the documents that remained in his possession, Kirchner later compiled some copies of the chronicle in Switzerland. The text that was the subject of the dispute was not changed for this purpose. It should be pointed out that none of the few copies correspond to the originally intended design and layout, and each is different in scope and emphasis. Even if the dissolution of the "Brücke" was a scandal, the former members were by no means at odds or even hostile afterwards, as one might suspect. In an interview with R. N. Ketterer in 1958, Erich Heckel sais: "So we parted, but without being in any way enemies of each other. We continued to meet, and if we had anything to say to each other, we visited one or the other. It really wasn't that we parted with a terrible row, as is always claimed. Rather, the reasons that played a decisive role were plausible for everyone, so that we all agreed: It would not have gone on well in this form anyway. The form of our union had come to its end, but human relations definitely hadn’t." (Roman Norbert Ketterer, Dialoge. Bildende Kunst. Kunsthandel, 1988, p. 49) The situation at the time of the "Brücke" dissolution in 1913 as Heckel describes it above would become more negative, especially due to Kirchner's mistrust, but also due to other circumstances.
The table of contents (Fig.) shows that the chronicle of the "Brücke" was originally intended to be released as a portfolio-like volume, with texts on the artist group, with original graphics and photographs. However, the chronicle did not come about in this form, not only because the artists' group was in the process of disbanding, but also because Kirchner (in his usual manner) took it upon himself to write and also design the chronicle, and the remaining members Heckel, Mueller, and Schmidt-Rottluff did not agree with the result. It is true that Heckel and Schmidt-Rottluff provide Kirchner with small woodcut vignettes reflecting an important motif of their work for the illustrations to the main text and probably also a planned full-page illustration each. But the decisive moment, the one that triggered the dispute, is the succinctly formulated text about influences and development: it was Kirchner's view of the "Brücke" period, it was his achievements that shaped the style of the group, be it the old German art of the Middle Ages with Cranach, Beham and Dürer, his discovery of non-European cultures in the corresponding museums in Dresden, which appear as artistic models in the work of the artists. In the discussions as we can assume they took place, the positions of the four characters moved further away from Kirchner's point of view. Kirchner left the "Brücke" on May 27, 1913, the remaining active members announce the dissolution of the "KG Brücke". Thus the "Chronik" was not sent to the members as planned and, strictly speaking, suffers the same fate as Max Pechstein’s unsent annual portfolio.[MvL]