The Maurizius case

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Maurizius case is a novel by Jakob Wassermann, written between 1925 and 1927 and published by S. Fischer in Berlin in 1928 . He tells the clarification of a miscarriage of justice .

Emil Orlik : Jakob Wassermann (1899)

characters

  • Baron Etzel von Andergast, high school student
  • Wolf Freiherr von Andergast, Etzel's father, senior public prosecutor
  • Sophia von Andergast, Etzel's mother
  • Cilly von Andergast, Etzel's grandmother, widow, called the general
  • Dr. Otto Leonhart Maurizius, lecturer, author of the “History of the Madonna cult based on visual representations”, convict 357 in the Kressa prison
  • Peter Paul Maurizius, Leonhart's father
  • Elli Maurizius, widowed Hensolt, née Jahn
  • Anna Jahn, unemployed sister Ellis
  • Hildegard Körner, Leonhart's illegitimate daughter
  • Gertrud Körner, Hildegard's mother, dancer
  • Gregor Waremme, alias Georg Warschauer, "private teacher, philologist , philosopher, player , salon lion, womanizer"

action

Two family conflicts

Wassermann's novel links two storylines thematically and personally: the disputes in the family of the Frankfurt Public Prosecutor Andergast, v. a. the father-son conflict , and in the style of a detective story in a competition between the lawyer and his son, the rolling-up of a court case dating back about 19 years, which ended with the conviction of the Cologne private lecturer Otto Leonhart Maurizius, although he did not make a confession.

The 16-year-old high school student Etzel Andergast lives in Frankfurt am Main in the house of his father, the Chief Public Prosecutor Wolf Freiherr von Andergast, who is known among the people for his loyalty to principles and relentlessness because of his "bloody Andergast". He also avoids emotions in his private life, so that his wife Sophia became lonely in the emotional marriage and committed adultery. Since its discovery, she has had to live abroad and renounce ties to her son. In the house in Etzel's presence there is no talk of his mother.

The main plot is triggered by the attempts of the former economist and landowner Peter Paul Maurizius from Hanau to win the public prosecutor, who pleaded for the death penalty during the trial, for the pardon of his son. This tells Etzel about the case. The man sentenced to life imprisonment has been in Kressa prison for more than 18 years because he is said to have shot his wife Elli. Since Etzel does not receive any information from his father and thus, in a phase of rebellion against the authoritarian style of upbringing , the incentive arises to pursue a secret, he contacts old Maurizius and secretly drives to Hanau. He tells him the history of the murder: His fun-loving and indebted 23-year-old son married the wealthy 38-year-old widow Elli Hensolt, née Jahn - in anticipation of eighty thousand marks inherited. He withheld his daughter Hildegard from her premarital relationship with the Swiss dancer Gertrud Körner. When she died, he commissioned his 19-year-old sister-in-law Anna Jahn, with whom he fell in love, to take the now two-year-old child to a foster family in England behind the back of his wife. Etzel also learns that the key witness Gregor Waremme, on whose testimony the conviction was based, is now teaching students as a private teacher Georg Warschauer in Berlin on Usedomstrasse, at the corner of Jasmunder Strasse. Anna, who was also present at the murder, inherited Ellis' fortune and now lives near Trier as Mrs. Duvernon and mother of two children.

Etzel is convinced of the innocence of Maurizius after studying the newspaper articles handed over to him by old Maurizius. Since he “has a remarkable acumen or instinct, a kind of Indian instinct, when it comes to bringing hidden things or circumstances to light”, he has discovered gaps in the circumstantial structure and wants to find out who committed the murder. So he asks his grandmother Cilly von Andergast, the “general”, three hundred marks and secretly goes to Berlin.

The mosaic picture of the Maurizius case

Encouraged by Etzel, the father also begins an investigation into the case. In the novel, the competing research, v. a. in the second part (chapters 8-13), entitled Zwischenreich , narrated alternately. They lead to the same result, but the son intends to rehabilitate, while the father intends to pardon the innocent convicted.

The authorial narrator lets the protagonists, and thus indirectly the reader, look at the prehistory of the murder from different perspectives : from the trial protocols, contemporary newspaper articles, the opinions of Etzel's interlocutors and v. a. the representations of father and son Maurizius and the witness Waremme. This creates a more and more refined mosaic image.

The questions about earthly justice and personality education

In the discussions, besides clarifying the events, the network of relationships between those involved in the case and their motives, questions about justice in the world and the role of the judiciary will be discussed. The protagonists represent different positions: the public prosecutor initially follows the strict line of punitive justice, according to his authoritarian personality , as the organ of which he sees himself. A court judgment is irrevocable for him. In the accused he sees a representative of the reckless, immoral and irresponsible youth (Chapter 9, Section 6). He wants to protect Etzel from such aberrations through his upbringing. He recognizes himself in Leonhart Maurizius' disappointed father and his own son in Leonhart. As a result, he is unconsciously sensitized to understand the actions of the people.

For Waremme there is no justice in the world, only psychological labyrinths. (11.2). The individual is exposed to random social constellations. From his experiences, once he was a victim, then again a perpetrator, he deduces his right to survive. Etzel rejects both views. That of the father is dogmatic and therefore ruthless, since his thinking is based on the abstract rule and not on the living individual. Waremme's point of view, on the other hand, is instinctively egocentric and ruthless (14.4-5). Leonhart Maurizius senses within himself the ambivalence of man between noble feelings and crime, both are possible (9.7). In the de-soulled machinery of justice and its despotic arbitrariness, he loses his human dignity and becomes an automaton without vital force, as his end shows (9.8; 13.7-8).

The author takes up a contemporary discussion about authoritarian state and family structures and the education of young people to be self-reliant. Etzel's teacher Dr. Camill Raff (3,1; 4,5) represents in the first part of the novel entitled The Preciousness of Life (Chapters 1-7) ideas of reform pedagogy . Characteristically, Andergast assesses him after a conversation as a threat to his son's development, recognizes him as his rival and arranges for him to be transferred to the province (5.5-6).

The investigations by the chief prosecutor of Andergast

Before he left, Etzel wrote his father a letter in which he gave him the main reason for his disappearance: “I want to find the truth”. When the public prosecutor suspects his mother to have been an accomplice to his son's plans, she accuses him of the fact that his “barracks regiment” was responsible for the boy's night and fog action and that he had his wife “chased poor Sophia out into her like a dog World ”and its lovers driven to death. Andergast is unsettled by the allegations and Etzel's plans, has Maurizius' files come home and checks the course of events and witness statements (5.7-8; 6.3-9).

At first he admires his “masterful [] work”, but he has to admit “a blemish”: “the lack of confession”. As he read on he noticed inconsistencies in the statements. He suspects that the disaster is related to the argument about Leonhart's child Hildegard and Anna's role in it, as Elli had cursed her sister and threatened to kill her and then herself. Further questions arise about Anna's relationship with Waremme, she was at times his secretary, and Leonhart Maurizius, who was often with her and gave her his picture with a declaration of love, as well as the friendship between Leonhart and Waremme (7.2). The chief public prosecutor takes a closer look at the details of the incident. They build on Waremme's observations that Maurizius took the revolver out of his coat pocket and shot his wife. The murder weapon was never found. Now Andergast is surprised that he interpreted the inconsistencies to the disadvantage of Leonhart Maurizius and not checked the information provided by the chance witnesses.

Herr von Andergast visits the prison convict Leonhart Maurizius in the Kressa prison (9.5-9) and asks him why he was silent during the trial and the many years afterwards. He replies: "Because I didn't want to commit murder". The visitor suspects that Anna should be spared.

During his visits, Maurizius tells the prosecutor the story of his unhappy marriage and the entanglements (12.1-7; 13.6-10). This gives Andergast insightful background information, e.g. B. that the key witness Waremme fell in love with 17-year-old Anna while studying a play and raped her in the cloakroom. When the unemployed Anna sought protection from her sister Elli, who was 20 years her senior, Waremme followed her, and he, a “ polyglot , a new Winckelmann , a poet, a fellow by the grace of God”, had become friends with Maurizius. Waremme, a despotic person, loved his friend, then hated him. In the group of four with the complicated network of relationships and jealousy, the arguments that began because of Leonhart's child Hildegard and ended murderously increase. Leonhart reflects on this conflict: “It was a perfect crushing procedure, where everyone was at the same time wheeled and whacked. Anna between me and Waremme, Elli between me and Anna, Anna between Elli and me, I between Anna and Waremme and Elli between all three. That went on day after day, week after week, until the terrible end. ”Elli couldn't bear her husband's turning to her sister. “A bloodthirsty ravenous wolf broke out of her when she turned against her sister.” “In the inmate's stories, those interwoven relationships between those involved in the process, a chaos of convention, passion, mendacity, and mendaciousness gradually come to light Promiscuity. Andergast recognizes that the foundations of all legal judgments, categories such as responsibility, justice, guilt and punishment, which are also the basis of his own existence, lose their validity in this labyrinth, that the line between right and wrong is blurred, indeed completely eliminated threatens to become. "

After the prison visit, the chief public prosecutor reconsiders all the facts from the files as well as the statements made by the detainee and concludes that Waremme must have sworn perjury. He contemplates the release of Maurizius on the pardon, visits Maurizius again and urgently advises the Minister of Justice in a dispatch that the prisoner Maurizius be pardoned immediately.

Etzel Andergast's research

Etzel sneaks into Waremme's living area in Berlin as his English student and Famulus (8.1-6). Although the boy soon tells him the reason for his visit, Waremme does not break the connection, but the lonely person uses him as a listener to whom he presents his experiences and world views (10.1-5; 11.1-4). He takes a liking to the naive and idealistic boy, invites him to the pastry shop and to jazz events and wants to open his eyes to what he believes is a corrupt reality. He treats Etzel condescendingly, playfully doses his information and for a long time does not address his core question about perjury. Undeterred, however, the boy spreads details that he learned from old Maurizius: The old man doesn't want to die until his son Leonhart is released from prison. Gradually, Waremme reveals his relationship with Maurizius and Anna. Etzel insists: "The judgment is wrong, the judgment is a judicial murder ... Justice must be done to people". and asks the “key witness” the question of conscience: “Who shot? Did she shoot Anna Jahn? "Finally, Waremme confesses in an emotional situation when he is fascinated by Etzel's slim young man:" Well, she shot, "and explains the motive of the murderer:" That she [Anna] him [ Maurizius] loved so beyond measure, did not forgive him and did not forgive himself. For this he had to suffer his punishment. He was no longer allowed to be in the world. The fact that she had shot her sister for his sake should never be a way from him to her. ”He justified his false statement with the“ duel ”with Maurizius for his beloved and the“ glimmer of hope ”on Anna, but Etzel could with his confession start nothing, he would not admit anything publicly and perjury was statute-barred. Etzel had expected that, however, and had Melitta, the daughter of the landlady Schneevogt, listen behind the door as a witness.

The irrevocability of death

Leonhart Maurizius is released from prison (15: 1-3). The freedman does not recognize the world: the women wear short skirts and light silk stockings. At home in Hanau, his father Peter Paul prepared everything for his son: laundry, all sorts of utensils for the gentleman and money. Then he sits down in the " corner sofa " and dies (15.4).

Maurizius is lonely due to the long isolation. His dreams cannot be realized and the attempts at contact end disillusioning. First he wants to visit his daughter Hildegard in Kaiserswerth, but she was sent abroad in good time (15.5). Maurizius then visits his sister-in-law in Echternach. Anna Duvernon has repressed everything and closed with the past. She is delighted that Maurizius does not mention her act. The years have ruined its beauty. “Miraculousness” is left over (15.6). As a result of the long imprisonment, he, too, has lost his soul, has no future prospects and is no longer viable, as the heading of the third part, The Irrevocable Death (Chapters 14 and 15), signals. After trips to Switzerland and Berlin with an unsatisfactory affair, Maurizius kills himself by jumping off a viaduct into the depths (15.7).

The prosecutor's life has also lost its meaning due to the silent admission of his error and bias, which enabled him to investigate in only one direction. He is requesting his retirement. The private defeat follows: When Etzel comes back from Berlin with his supposed success report and learns of the pardon, he yells at his father: “If he's innocent, he doesn't need grace!” And breaks off the relationship: “I don't want to be your son! ”Andergast suffered a stroke and had to be taken to a sanatorium with his mouth half open . Etzel closes the novel with the words: "" One should fetch my mother. "Whatever [happens]"

Sophia returned to Frankfurt a few days ago (13.1) after her mother-in-law notified her of Etzel's disappearance. In the reckoning with her husband (13.3-5), the public prosecutor becomes the accused in the Maurizius case as in the Andergast case: She accuses him, the principled justice fanatic, of inciting perjury, blaming him for the death of her lover as well as for him on her son's escape, she describes her adultery as "a failed attempt to escape from a dungeon" and reminds Andergast that she could never believe Maurizius' guilt.

Quotes

  • "Where there is no talk, there is no contradiction."
  • "Each generation is a species in itself, belongs to a different tree."
  • "The higher world is only revealed through the parable."
  • "A woman does not understand what it is, the man's time."
  • "The sighted gets cold."
  • "Perhaps the truth only arises through time and in time?"
  • "Some passions only owe their origin to the fear of emptiness."
  • "Responsibilities always get too big when you want to evade them."
  • "Everyone shares in justice as he shares in the air."

reception

  • Henry Miller goes into his essay "Maurizius Forever" on the historical background of the novel.
  • Wassermann's conventionally presented prose is partly trivial.
  • According to Koester, the Carl Hau case only served as a material model. Basically, Wassermann wanted to penetrate father hatred and justice psychologically and present a painting of the times.

trilogy

The work includes the novels

literature

First edition

  • Jakob Wassermann: The Maurizius case . S. Fischer, Berlin 1928. 577 pages. linen

source

  • Jakob Wassermann: The Maurizius case . Rütten & Loening, Berlin 1976. 488 pages. Frequent new editions, e.g. T. with afterword by Fritz Martini

expenditure

  • Jakob Wassermann: The Maurizius case. Frankfurt am Main 2005, ISBN 3-458-34784-4 .
  • as audio book (abridged) Herbig, 2003.

Secondary literature

  • Jörg von Uthmann: Twelve minutes to twelve , about Jakob Wassermann's The Maurizius case in Marcel Reich-Ranicki (ed.) Novels from yesterday - read today , Vol. II 1918 - 1933, pp. 148–152, S. Fischer Verlag, Frankfurt a. M. 1989, ISBN 3-10-062911-6 .
  • Margarita Pazi , in: Gunter E. Grimm, Frank Rainer Max (ed.): German poets. Life and work of German-speaking authors. Volume 7: From the beginning to the middle of the 20th century . Pp. 40-46. Stuttgart 1991, ISBN 3-15-008617-5 .
  • Rudolf Koester: Jakob Wassermann. Berlin 1996, ISBN 3-371-00384-1 .
  • Peter Sprengel : History of German-language literature 1900 - 1918. Munich 2004, ISBN 3-406-52178-9 .
  • Henry Miller in: Jakob Wassermann: Etzel Andergast. Novel. With an afterword by Henry Miller. Pp. 611–667, Munich in April 2002, 667 pages, ISBN 3-423-12960-3 .
  • Gero von Wilpert : Lexicon of world literature. German authors A - Z. Stuttgart 2004. P. 651, ISBN 3-520-83704-8 .
  • Marcus Bullock: 1928: Jakob Wassermann's novel "Der Fall Maurizius" presents the final expression of his views on the relationship of Germans and Jews. In: Sander L. Gilman , Jack Zipes (ed.): Yale companion to Jewish writing and thought in German culture 1096-1996. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1997, pp. 471-478

Film adaptations

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Koester, p. 72, 9. Zvo
  2. ↑ Source, p. 117.
  3. ↑ Source, p. 107.
  4. ↑ Source, p. 111.
  5. ↑ Source, p. 343.
  6. ↑ Source, p. 342.
  7. ↑ Source, p. 359.
  8. ↑ Source, p. 366.
  9. ^ Rudolf Radler
  10. ↑ Source, p. 435.
  11. ↑ a b source, p. 442.
  12. ↑ Source, p. 444.
  13. ↑ Source, p. 482.
  14. ↑ Source, p. 486
  15. ↑ Source, p. 488.
  16. ↑ a b source, p. 387.
  17. ↑ a b source, p. 97.
  18. ↑ Source, p. 249.
  19. ↑ Source, p. 294.
  20. ↑ Source, p. 307
  21. ↑ Source, p. 378.
  22. ↑ Source, p. 465.
  23. ↑ Source, p. 484.
  24. ^ Sprengel, p. 377, 16. Zvo
  25. ↑ Koester, pp. 72-74