The frequency of change in the narrative structure in the novel is reflected in the way in which the narrator is positioned (henceforth, I will refer to the narrator in the masculine form). At various instances in the novel, we find the narrator placed as an outsider to the events taking place within the story itself. For example, when describing Herr Mergel’s first wife, phrases such as “man sah” are commonplace – “sah man die junge Frau schriened und blutrüstig...” (Judenbuche p.12, line 12), “man sah ihn noch bis spät in die Nacht…” (Judenbuche p. 12, line 18). Such a detached form suggests that the narrator himself was not a spectator of the events in question, but is recounting an episode once witnessed by others. Consequently, this weakens the stability of the narrator’s statement and implies unreliability and incomplete knowledge on his part.
Conversely, Droste-Hülshoff provides narrative elsewhere in the novel which supplies information that only a far more powerful narrator could possess, such as insights into private conversations. For example, very early one Sunday morning whilst preparing to go to confession, Friedrich encounters Simon. The two converse in whispers in the darkness regarding the murder of Brandis, with Friedrich implying guilt on his otherwise unsuspected Uncle - ‘in der Kammertür stand Simon…die vom Mondschein verursachte Blässe des Gesichts gaben ihm ein schauerlich verändertes Ansehen’(Judenbuche, p.39, line 12). “Wo ist Eure Axt?” (Judenbuche, p.39, line 28) he asks Simon. Such an incriminating statement is obviously said privately between the two, since Simon is never suspected of Brandis’ murder, thus proving the omniscient role the narrator exploits.
An additional way in which the role of the narrator reigns supreme is through the withholding of information from the reader, a trait clearly portrayed in the events surrounding the death of Hermann Mergel. The young Friedrich believes he hears a knocking on the door, “Mutter – es pocht draussen! [...] Nein, Mutter, an der Tur!” (Judenbuche, p.14, lines 19-21). The narrator subtly suggests to the reader, through Friedrich’s own fears, that Herr Mergel is in fact outside in the storm, trying to get into the house. The reader is given no further clues or commentary regarding the either the noise Friedrich hears, or cause of Herr Mergel’s death. Even though Friedrich’s initial fears are never proven, the reader is provided with no alternative perspective and is left guessing.
This, as it turns out, is a sign of things to come in the novel as a whole: there are many occasions on which the reader must draw their own conclusions. Similarly vague is the murder of Brandis – no one bears witness to his death (apart from the murderer himself, who is never revealed), and Droste-Hülshoff provides no commentary to accompany the act. We are told only that ‘“Nein, Herr,” rief Friedrich, “wenn Ihr zu den andern Forstern wollt, die sind dort and der Buche hunaufgegangen.”’(Judenbuche, p.39, line 4)
Interestingly, this is the only occasion on which we are invited inside Friedrich’s mind, which I believe gives the reader a sense of superiority, as a possessor of secret knowledge. Such reader-supremacy is put forth, through use of the narrative, on numerous other occasions throughout the tale. For example, when recounting his actions on the night of Brandis’ murder to his mother, Friedrich omits some ‘Kleinigkeiten’ (Judenbuche, p.33, line 3) which he found better to exclude. Later, during Friedrich’s declaration of innocence in the court, the narrator tells us that “er (Friedrich) beantwortete jedoch alle offen und bestimmt und erzählte den Vorgang zwischen ihm und dem Oberförster ziemlich der Wahrheit gemäβ, bis auf das Ende, das er geratener fand, für sich zu behalten.”(Judenbuche, p.31, lines 29-32). These admissions of Freidrich twisting the truth, in addition to the clues laced throughout the narrative, place the reader in a position far superior to any of the other characters in the book, such as the baffled courts.
Only two pages after Friedrich’s statement to the court, his meeting with Simon is illustrated. Droste-Hülshoff uses this opportunity to introduce more ‘possibilities and versions’, with immensely interesting effect. As far as we believe, Friedrich is guilty of Brandis’ murder; all of the signs point towards Friedrich and our conviction is only heightened by our apparent superiority. This confuses the reader and prompts questions to be asked – why does Friedrich ask the whereabouts of Simon’s axe? Is Friedrich trying to plant the blame on somebody else? Who really killed Brandis? From this point on, I believe Droste-Hülshoff makes one greatly suspicious of the narrator’s integrity and prompts the reader to decide whether he is critical or sceptical of his knowledge so far, questioning whether he can continue to believe that Friedrich is the guilty party.
Furthermore, though the reader has no clues to suggest otherwise, the narrator does not reveal the truth regarding the true identity of Johannes Niemand upon his return to ‘Dorfe B.’ (Judenbuche, p.9, line 15), though the reader does not yet have any clues to suggest otherwise.
As highlighted and supported by the various examples included, I submit that the polyphonic form of the text does indeed provoke discussion about knowledge-critical and knowledge-sceptical states. I suggest that the sudden change between diegesis and mimesis effectively retains our attention, allowing us to pick up on details and clues laid out by the author, strengthening our relationship with the narrator and encouraging us to piece together information for ourselves. Droste-Hülshoff’s techniques clearly impel the reader to determine whether or not they remain dependent upon the narrator, or whether they question the information being provided.
Personally, the means employed by Droste-Hülshoff which I find most effective is the overall way in which we are provoked by the narrator. First, we are reliant on him for guidance, since so many gaps are left in the narrative – for example, why is Freidrich’s home town referred to only as ‘Dorfe B’? Such ambiguity from the very start prompts us to view the whole novel as a mystery, and thus from this vulnerable position we depend on the narrator to provide clues. Secondly, we are allowed pieces of seemingly advantageous knowledge, strengthening our bond with, and almost levelling us with, the narrator. We are then, thirdly, deprived of our sense of superiority when Johannes Niemand’s true identity is slowly revealed, and we realise that the narrator has perhaps not been as honest with us as we think – we are treated as inferior as the unsuspecting inhabitants of ‘Dorfe B’.
I consequently argue that the numerous ‘‘voices’, possibilities, and versions’ require the reader to actively decide whether their own relationship with the narrator is one of trust or incredulity, thus prompting them to categorise themselves as critical or sceptical of the knowledge gained from die Judenbuche.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Annette von Droste-Hülshoff, Die Judenbuche. Text und Kommentar (henceforth Judenbuche), (Frankfurt/M 1999) (= Suhrkamp Basisbibliothek 14) (ISBN 3518188143)
Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith, Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics (Florence, KY, USA: Routledge 1983)
, (27.11.2007) Postmodern Literary Criticism (lines 9-11),
http://www.britannica.com/oscar/print?articleId=106259&fullArticle=true&tocId=232400
Annette von Droste-Hülshoff, Die Judenbuche. Text und Kommentar (henceforth Judenbuche), (Frankfurt/M 1999) (= Suhrkamp Basisbibliothek 14) (ISBN 3518188143) p. 17, line 31