Nell in Bridewell - Part 11 - 1895 German Version

In part 10, I mentioned I had found a third version of Lenchen im Zuchthause.  Image above is the title page for this version printed in 1895.  (Click on the image to view full size) I am quite certain that this newly found version of Lenchen is NOT the original version published much earlier in 1840. In my opinion, however, it is the source for translated story published in 1900 that we know as Nell in Bridewell.

At this point we have three versions of Lenchen and they are all different.  Publication dates for these are:

1. 1895 (scroll up to see title page)
2. 1974 book cover below
3. 1920 title page is below

Image above shows the 1920 and 1974 books side by side. What is clear is that the 1974 book is not a serious attempt to reproduce the complete, uncensored version of Lenchen.  It has, however, value in that the source for this 1974 book is the 1895 version, albeit with parts left out or truncated. 

Its value, even missing parts, is that it was published in a modern German font that has already been digitized.  What I have for the 1895 version is a huge pdf that consists of page images.  Just look at the font in which this book was printed (again click on image for full size):

This is a nightmare!  I've run it through OCR engines and end up with 30 to 40 percent OCR errors. Thus, that 1974 version really comes in handy.

Let's briefly review what we know about this story.  Author of the German story, Wilhelm Reinhard, at one time was in charge of a several prisons in Germany.  So, while the story is fiction, the conditions and punishments dispensed during that era are accurate.  Indeed, so accurate that the government, being embarrassed by the poor conditions and cruel punishments, censored and banned the book.

These censors, however, created a real dilemma for the publishers as the book was quite popular and therefore, highly profitable.  Consequently, multiple versions of Lenchen were created in an attempt to placate censors.  While these "curtailed" and softened versions worked for a while, some aristocrat would complain and the curtailed, "censor approved" version would end up being banned as well. 

This demonstrates the whole problem with censorship.  That is, publishers are attempting to satisfy "moving targets".  Further complicating things is that while censors claim their goal is to protect the public from lewd, obscene, and pornographic materials, above all else their highest civic duty is to protect the public from works critical of...  you guessed it... their employers - the government!

That, in my opinion, is exactly what we have here.  Now bear in mind, I have not seen in English a complete translation of the original work. What I recall from Nell in the way of sexually explicit scenes consists of references to severe punishments handed out to inmates caught engaging in the homosexual activities.  Frankly, there is no way anyone in 1840 would find this offensive and, indeed, those very scenes made their way to Nell.

So, what was the government trying to hide?  Well, that's what I'm going to attempt to figure out.  In doing so, an ancillary benefit is I get a more complete version of the English story, Nell in Bridewell.

To do any comparison, we need to establish which printed version is the original Lenchen story.  If you look at the title page in the 1920 book, it purports to be an unchanged reprint of the original 1840 story.  Should we believe it?  I think so and as we review the things I've found, I believe I can make a pretty convincing case for why this version is the "genuine article".

Let's start with the Forward in the 1920 book.  This forward, written by the author, I posted in both English and German in Part 9 (click to view). What's interesting about this Forward is that it exists nowhere else - that is, in no other German version nor in any versions of Nell!  So why would government censors intentionally discard Reinhard's Forward?

This leads directly to the question of when the censorship actually occurred and who were the censors.  It might have been around the 1895 printing date.  A different Carrington book claims that the censorship happened around 1872.  In either case, it was Imperial Germany making decisions on what it would allow in Reinhard's book.  (Reinhard died in Paris back in 1858 so he had no part in these decisions.)

My "guess" is the "problem" in the Forward is contained in the second paragraph.  Here Reinhard mentions "debates over penitentiary systems in the New World".  I seriously doubt Imperial Germany would want to compare any of their policies or practices to what we were doing in the US.  That is something they would have zero interest in, nor would they want to draw any attention to our reform efforts.

~00O00~

Moving on, I then shifted to the very end of the story, the infamous Postscript.  Here, unfortunately, the 1974 version has a highly truncated Postscript.  Nell's postscript, on the other hand, is very much aligned with the 1895 version, but with some minor "embellishments". 

First letter in the Postscript is from Marie to Lenchen. (I touched on the main character's name confusion in Part 1 for English readers.  It's much more straightforward in German.  Main character is Helene.  Her friends call her Helenchen, which is the diminutive appended to her name or little Helene.  Then, returning to 2 syllables:  Helenchen reduces to Lenchen.)

Anyhow, in this first letter Marie is telling Lenchen she will be freed from prison, because she asked her friend, a high-ranking Government Commissioner, to intervene. This official brags to Marie on what a good job he did because:

Nell:  She took out of the writing-table of her employer a certain sum, which she appropriated to her own use, or to other purposes. The judge calls this a full, complete and well authenticated domiciliary theft, for which six months imprisonment is not too severe a penalty.

1895:  Sie hat ihrer Dienstherrschaft, aus dem Sekretär, eine bedeutende Summe genommen und für sich oder ihren Zweck verwandt. Dies nennt der Richter einen vollendeten, großen, qualifizierten Hausdiebstahl, und für diesen sind sechs Monate Zuchthaus keine zu harte Strafe. 

1920:  Sie hat ihrer Dienstherrschaft aus dem Secretär eine bedeutende Summe genommen und für sich oder ihren Zweck verwandt. Dies nennt der Richter einen vollendeten, grossen, qualifieirten Hausdiebstahl, und für dieses sind sechs Monate Zuchthaus, und wenn auch der schöne Hintere dabei leiden muss, keine zu harte Strafe.

Translation of 1920 text above:  She took a considerable sum of money from her employers’ desk and appropriated it for herself or for her own purposes. The judge terms this a consummated, major, and aggravated case of domestic theft; for such an offense, six months in the House of Correction—even if her shapely hind end must suffer in the process—is not too harsh a punishment.

So, in the 1920 version, that high-ranking government official says that for stealing such a large sum, six months in prison and a sound spanking are appropriate! Hmmm, guess the censors didn't care for the official's acknowledgement that a spanking goes along with the prison sentence.

~00O00~

Following this letter there is a response from Lenchen to Marie.  Now, this letter exists in Nell, 1895 and 1920.  It does not exist at all in the 1974 version of Lenchen (remember I've already concluded that the 1974 was not a serious work). In this letter, Lenchen complains that while she is free everyone, knows her story:

Nell:  the criminal, the girl who was publicly whipped in the House of Correction, the condemned prisoner, who, -- though now pardoned, -- is still the criminal that was ignominiously flogged by the coarse hand of a Warder

1895:  bin ich die Züchtlingin, die Sträflingin, die -- wenn au begnadigte --- Verbrecherin, die von der Hand des Schergen ſchmählich Gezüchtigte 

1920:   bin ich die Züchtlingin, die Sträflingin, die — wenn auch begnadiegte — Verbrecherin, die mit dem Farrenwadel von der Hand des Schergen vor einem zahlreichen Publicum auf schimpflich dargeleste, sonst verhüllte Leibestheile schmählich Gezüchtigte 

Trans of 1920 above:  the criminal, the — albeit pardoned — criminal, who with the executioner’s whip in the henchman’s hand before a numerous public was shamefully chastised upon ignominiously exposed — otherwise veiled-parts of her body

Guess the censors didn't much care for the "graphic" account of what Nell actually experienced.  

~00O00~

Finally (for now anyhow), the book ends with a somewhat philosophical letter from Lenchen to Marie.  Below is an entire paragraph with footnote that exists in no other version except the 1920:

Was mir den fast tödtlich-schmerzenden Willkomm im Strafhause zuzog, gewann mir den überseligen Willkomm in den Liebesarmen meines Isidors — und als meine gepriesenen, mit Neugierde und Wollust angestaunten Glieder unter den Schwingungen des Schergen bis in’s tiefe Mark zerschmettert und in ein reichliches Blutbad gesetzt wurden, wer hätte geglaubt, dass das Lager auf der Schranne mir zum Brautbett werden solle?  (*

(* Der Willkomm erscheint zwar nicht als wesentliches Glied in der Kette der Ereignisse; alles hätte geschehen können ohne jene Schläge; aber nicht ohne Lenchens Handlung, für welche das Zuchthaus die gesetzliche Strafe war, und zum Zuchthause gehörte damals der — Willkomm. Ich bemerke dies, weil zarten, gefühlvollen Seelen die grausame, unziemliche Misshandlung eines jungfräulichen Hintern anstössig sein nnd sie daher bei ihnen einer speciellen Rechtfertigung bedürfen wird. Ohbnedies ist dieses Ereigniss nicht Diehtung — sondern — Wahrheit.

Translation:

What brought me that almost deadly, agonizing Willkomm in the House of Correction, won me the blissful welcome in the loving arms of my Isidor — and when my often praised limbs, gazed upon with curiosity and lust, were shattered to the very marrow by the executioner’s blows and plunged into a profuse bath of blood, who would have believed that the bed on the market square would become my bridal bed? (*

(* Willkomm may not appear to be an essential link in the chain of events; everything could have happened without those blows; but not without Lenchen’s crime, for which prison was the legal punishment, and at that time, Willkomm was part of that prison. I note this because to tender, sensitive souls the cruel, indecent mistreatment of a virgin’s bottom may be offensive, and therefore it will require a special justification on their part. Moreover, this event is not fiction—but—truth. 

I can only surmise, but the paragraph and its footnote seem to contain details Imperial Germany would have preferred to keep from public scrutiny.

~00O00~

In conclusion, so far what I've found is "omissions or deletions" from the text in the 1920 published book that are embarrassing to Imperial Germany.  This version is significantly longer than all of the others with far, far more footnotes. That is why I believe it is truly "an unchanged reprint of the original 1840 story". 

Much credit is due to Sir Henry of Trier, whose dedication and perseverance made this discovery of the 1920 version possible.