Ideas of justice in "The Jews’ Beech". Annette von Droste-Hülshoff, on the 175th anniversary of her death
by Claudia Lieb
Annette von Droste-Hülshoff, one of the great German authors of the 19th century, died 175 years ago. She is regarded today as a master of eco-sensitive literature. Her birthplace, Münster in Westphalia, is associated with Droste’s name both nationally and internationally. Not far from there, in the Paderborn region, is the setting of her famous novella The Jews’ Beech, whose subtitle characterises it as A portrait of morals in hilly Westphalia. The place of action is abbreviated to “B” and, according to the story, is somewhere in a principality in the Teutoburg Forest. However, “B” conceals a historical case: a servant from Bellersen had killed a Jew in Droste’s grandfather’s estate, before fleeing, returning and finally committing suicide. The Jews’ Beech alludes to this.
Crime novels
When Droste wrote the story around 1830, she gave it the working title Friedrich Mergel, a crime story of the 18th century. In doing so, she placed it clearly in the contemporary wave of literarised legal cases and case histories. The genre of the crime story boomed during Droste’s lifetime, and her story was in the best of company: texts such as Friedrich Schiller’s edited collection Strange legal cases as a contribution to the history of mankind (1792-1795), the Crime stories full of adventure and wonder, and yet strictly close to the truth (1802-1804) attributed to Christian Heinrich Spieß, Carl Friedrich Müchler’s Crime stories (1828-1833), Theodor Haupt’s Library of notable criminal and legal cases of older and more recent times and of all civilised peoples (1830-31), as well as even more entertainment-oriented formats such as Friedrich Spiess’ Painting room of human monsters and rogues (1839) – these all testify to the popularity of the genre.
Given the abundance of such titles, it can be assumed that the “crime story” was seen as exciting entertainment and sold well. Publications with the word “crime” in the title did not stop in the 1840s. However, when Droste finally published her story in 1842 as The Jews’ Beech: A portrait of morals in hilly Westphalia, she departed from this common title. Nevertheless, the book is part of the criminal literary discourse and alludes to the legal system of the time from the very first page. It is true that Droste dated the plot to the time before her birth and set it in the middle of the 18th century. But this did not prevent her from addressing pressing legal problems of the time.
Crime and punishment?
The narrative itself is preceded by a poem that seems to be directed against the legal prosecution of crimes. The scales (of Justitia) should be laid down, and the stone should not strike the perpetrator. Just as Jesus says in the Gospel of John: “Let him who is without sin among you cast the first stone” (John 8:7), so Droste says: “Put down the scales, to thee never allowed! / Let lie the stone – it strikes thine own head!”
The claim that crimes must or can be lawfully punished is radically questioned even before the action begins. It is therefore not surprising that The Jews’ Beech should tell of capital offences such as murder and manslaughter that either go unsolved or escape official punishment. They go hand in hand with a murderous destruction of the environment that no one knows what to do about: the cleared, plundered and ruined forest landscape in the text corresponds to the impoverished, neglected and brutalised village population who live in a destroyed community where lies, alcoholic excesses and violent crime are the order of the day.
How closely are linked the crimes against the human being and nature can be seen in the parallels both spatial and in terms of motifs. First, the father of the main character Friedrich Mergel is discovered dead in the forest for no apparent reason; a little later, a felled beech tree lies in the same forest clearing as though dead. Later it will be the eponymous Jewish beech tree, in whose vicinity the forester Brandis is killed violently, the Jew Aaron is murdered and his presumed murderer Friedrich Mergel is (again presumably) found hanged.
No less violent than the murder and manslaughter are the acts of a gang of wood thieves who cause serious damage to the forest ecosystem. In a gruesome nocturnal scene, the extent of the environmental destruction becomes clear when Friedrich enters the forest clearing with his uncle: “The moon shone clearly … and revealed that the axe had shortly before raged unmercifully. Tree stumps stuck out everywhere, some several feet above the earth … The despicable work must have been unexpectedly interrupted, for one beech lay athwart the path, in full leaf, its branches stretching high above itself and the fresh leaves shivering in the night wind”. The beech tree seems to have been just as brutally torn from life as the human figures. But the narrative emphasises that the destruction of nature cannot be stopped “by legal means”. In denouncing this notion, though, Droste indirectly spoke out in favour of nature being better protected – also by legal means.
Criticising the law
A dysfunctional legal system is already outlined in the opening sentences. “Under highly simple and often inadequate laws, the inhabitants’ notions of justice and injustice had become somewhat confused, or rather, a second justice had formed alongside the legal one, a justice of public opinion, of habit and of negative prescription arising from neglect”.
What legal pluralism is meant here? The passage is generally reminiscent of the contrast between written law and unwritten customary law. It is possible that the “second justice” also refers to village customs such as the eldest son of a family being the heir to the farm. One possible allusion to the “inadequate laws” is the heterogeneous criminal law, which should actually be consulted in view of the crimes described, such as murder and manslaughter. Criminal codes existed at various times in the Old Empire at a territorial level, but the Constitutio Criminalis Carolina (Emperor Charles V’s 1532 Code of Criminal Procedure) still had a certain weight at a supra-regional level. In addition, the General Land Law with its penal code had been in force in Prussia since 1794. The different sources of law led in historical practice to considerable legal uncertainty in court.
The fact that the “court hearing” concerning the murder of Aaron remains without result is due to the fact that the investigation of the offence is left to the patrimonial jurisdiction. Droste’s text begins succinctly: “Landowners, who had the right of jurisdiction at the lower levels, punished and rewarded according to their own, in most cases sincere, judgment”. Common during Droste’s lifetime, this legal practice was highly controversial, since it was especially problematic for dependents and serfs. Thus, the course of events in the book shows that neither the lord of the manor of S nor his court clerk Kapp are able to solve and punish the crimes – no matter how many interrogations and investigations are pursued.
Jewish law
In The Jews’ Beech, the bankruptcy of patrimonial jurisdiction is outweighed by the solvency of another law: namely, that of Jewish law, which is based on the Torah and other books of the Hebrew Bible, such as the five books of Moses. Droste quotes the books of Moses by having the wife of the slain Jew Aaron say: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth!”. This Biblical phrase comes in the second and third books of Moses. In the third book, it says: “Whoever kills any man shall be put to death. But whoever kills a piece of livestock shall replace it, life for life. And whoever injures his neighbour, the same shall be done to him as he has done, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth; as he has injured a man, so shall it be done to him. ... There shall be one and the same law among you for the stranger and for the native-born; I am the LORD your God” (Leviticus 24:17-22). Christian theology refers to this legal concept as ius talionis or the talion principle. It refers to the principle of equal retribution and is based on a literal interpretation of Biblical passages. As Simon Grundwald writes, the talion principle was often regarded historically “as the epitome of the difference between Judaism and Christianity”. However, the Jewish interpretation of the Biblical passages assumes that these are aimed at a “right of compensation” and not at the right to revenge or “physical retribution against a criminal”. Grundwald explains:
The Talmudic interpretation thus assumes that the talion principle cannot be interpreted literally. Revenge and retribution have no place in Jewish Talmudic thinking, because revenge is always God’s business (Deuteronomy 32:35). The Talmud demands that the right of talion be carried out through material compensation. This means that corporal punishment should not be imposed; instead, the Talmud establishes a system of damages, compensation for pain and suffering, medical expenses (doctor’s fees), compensation for missed work and compensation for humiliation. This should fulfil the Talion principle.
Only in the case of murder or manslaughter does the third book of Moses demand the death of the perpetrator.
But back to The Jews’ Beech and its author. It is possible that Droste was familiar with Jewish legal thought through her circle of friends and acquaintances, which also included the orientalist Anton Lutterbeck and the physician Alexander Haindorf, who knew Hebrew. In any case, Droste’s story takes a turn that fits the principle both of compensation and of retribution: after the failed trial, members of the Jewish community acquire from the lord of the manor the beech tree where Aaron’s murder occurred – on the condition that it may not be felled. Later, another body is found in the same beech tree – probably that of Aaron’s murderer, who has taken his own life.
In Droste’s text, however, the beech is inscribed with Hebrew characters by members of the Jewish community. The English translation reads: “If you approach this place, it will happen to you as you have done to me”. It is evidently a reformulation of the Talion passage from the third book of Moses: “Whoever injures his neighbour, the same shall be done to him as he has done” (Leviticus 24:19). It seems that Droste added felled trees to the criminal offences in the Bible – slain cattle, slain people and bodily harm.
Thus, the Jews’ beech can be seen as a symbolic substitute for the destruction of nature, while the corpse of the alleged murderer atones for the death of man. There is still the addition that Droste placed before the prophecy: “If you approach this place”. Droste was obviously familiar with the word “Halacha”, the term for Jewish law. “Halacha” is derived from the Hebrew verb “halach” (to walk), and therefore literally means “the path to be travelled” (Homolka). Anyone approaching the scene of the crime of the Jews’ beech is therefore setting out on the path of law.
Bibliography
Annette von Droste-Hülshoff: Die Judenbuche. Studienausgabe. Paralleldruck der Handschriften H2 und H8 mit dem Text des Erstdrucks, hg. v. Bernd Kortländer, Stuttgart 2016.
English version: Annette von Droste-Hülshoff: The Jews’ Beech, online: https://www.lwl.org/droste-download/texte/Judenbuche-Swan-LV.pdf (22.12.2023)
Simon Grundwald: Auge um Auge? Zur jüdischen Rezeption des Vergeltungsprinzips, online: https://www.israelogie.de/dialog-zwischen-juden-und-christen/auge-um-auge-zur-juedischen-rezeption-des-vergeltungsprinzips/ (24.04.2023).
Walter Homolka: Das Jüdische Recht. Eigenart und Entwicklung in der Geschichte, in: Humboldt Forum Recht 17 (2009), 1-33.
