T HE TRIAL was in another town, about an hour’s drive away. I had no other reason ever to go there. Another student drove. He had grown up there and knew the place.
It was a Thursday. The trial had begun on Monday. The first three days of proceedings1 had been taken up with defense2 motions to recuse. Our group was the fourth, and so would witness the examination of the defendants3 at the actual start of proceedings.
We drove along Bergstrasse under blossoming fruit trees. We were bubbling over with exhilaration: finally we could put all our training into practice. We did not feel like mere5 spectators, or listeners, or recorders. Watching and listening and recording6 were our contributions to the exploration of history.
The court was in a turn-of-the-century building, but devoid7 of the gloomy pomposity8 so characteristic of court buildings of the time. The room that housed the assize court had a row of large windows down the left-hand side, with milky9 glass that blocked the view of the outdoors but let in a great deal of light. The prosecutors10 sat in front of the windows, and against the bright spring and summer daylight they were no more than black silhouettes12. The court, three judges in black robes and six selected local citizens, was in place at the head of the courtroom and on the right-hand side was the bench of defendants and their lawyers: there were so many of them that the extra chairs and tables stretched into the middle of the room in front of the public seats. Some of the defendants and their lawyers were sitting with their backs to us. One of them was Hanna. I did not recognize her until she was called, and she stood up and stepped forward. Of course I recognized the name as soon as I heard it: Hanna Schmitz. Then I also recognized the body, the head with the hair gathered in an unfamiliar13 knot, the neck, the broad back, and the strong arms. She held herself very straight, balanced on both feet. Her arms were relaxed at her sides. She wore a gray dress with short sleeves. I recognized her, but I felt nothing. Nothing at all.
Yes, she wished to stand. Yes, she was born on October 21, 1922, near Hermannstadt and was now forty-three years old. Yes, she had worked at Siemens in Berlin and had joined the SS in the autumn of 1943.
“Yes.”
“Why?
Hanna did not answer.
“Is it true that you joined the SS even though Siemens had offered you a job as a foreman?”
Hanna’s lawyer was on his feet. “What do you mean by ‘even though’? Do you mean to suggest that a woman should prefer to become a foreman at Siemens than join the SS? There are no grounds for making my client’s decision the object of such a question.”
He sat down. He was the only young defense attorney; the others were old—some of them, as became apparent, old Nazis15. Hanna’s lawyer avoided both their jargon17 and their lines of reasoning. But he was too hasty and too zealous18 in ways that were as damaging to his client as his colleagues’ Nazi16 tirades19 were to theirs. He did succeed in making the judge look irritated and stop pursuing the question of why Hanna had joined the SS. But the impression remained that she had done it of her own accord and not under pressure. It didn’t help her when one of the legal members of the court asked Hanna what kind of work she expected to do for the SS and she said that the SS was recruiting women at Siemens and other factories for guard duties and she had applied20 and was hired.
To the judge’s questions, Hanna testified in monosyllables that yes, she had served in Auschwitz until early 1944 and then in a small camp near Cracow until the winter of 1944–45, that yes, when the prisoners were moved to the west she went with them all the way, that she was in Kassel at the end of the war and since then had lived in one place and another. She had been in my city for eight years; it was the longest time she had spent in any one place.
“Is her frequent change of residence supposed to be grounds for viewing her as a flight risk?” The lawyer was openly sarcastic21. “My client registered with the police each time she arrived at a new address and each time she left. There is no reason to assume she would run away, and there is nothing for her to hide. Did the judge feel it impossible to release my client on her own recognizance because of the gravity of the charges and the risk of public agitation22? That, members of the court, is a Nazi rationale for custody23; it was introduced by the Nazis and abolished after the Nazis. It no longer exists.” The lawyer’s malicious24 emphasis underlined the irony25 in this truth.
I was jolted26. I realized that I had assumed it was both natural and right that Hanna should be in custody. Not because of the charges, the gravity of the allegations, or the force of the evidence, of which I had no real knowledge yet, but because in a cell she was out of my world, out of my life. I wanted her far away from me, so unattainable that she could continue as the mere memory she had become and remained all these years. If the lawyer was successful, I would have to prepare myself to meet her again, and I would have to work out how I wanted to do that, and how it should be. And I could see no reason why he should fail. If Hanna had not tried to escape the law so far, why should she try now? And what evidence could she suppress? There were no other legal reasons at that time to hold someone in custody.
The judge seemed irritated again, and I began to realize that this was his particular trick. Whenever he found a statement either obstructionist or annoying, he took off his glasses, stared at the speaker with a blank, short-sighted gaze, frowned, and either ignored the statement altogether or began with “So you mean” or “So what you’re trying to say is” and then repeated what had been said in a way as to leave no doubt that he had no desire to deal with it and that trying to compel him to do so would be pointless.
“So you’re saying that the arresting judge misinterpreted the fact that the defendant4 ignored all letters and summonses, and did not present herself either to the police, or the prosecutor11, or the judge? You wish to make a motion to lift the order of detention27?”
The lawyer made the motion and the court denied it.
法庭的审理在另外的一个城市里进行，开车去那里需要近一个小时的时间。此前，我与那个城市从未发生什么关系。另外一位同学开车，他是在那里长大的，对那里的情况非常熟悉。
那是一个星期四。法庭的审理在星期一就开始了，前三天的审理时间都用于辩护律师为辩护人提申请。我们第四组将要经历的是法庭对被告人的直接审理、这将是法庭审理的真正开始。
我们轻松愉快，情绪高涨地沿着山路在盛开的果树下面行驶。我们的所学总算有用武之地了，我们感觉自己不仅仅是观众、听众和记录员，观审、听审和做记录是我们对清理工作所做的一份贡献。
这座法庭是一座世纪之交的建筑，但又没有当时法庭建筑所常有的富丽堂皇和睦俄昏暗。刑事陪审法庭开庭的大厅里，左边是一排大窗户，乳白色的玻璃挡住了人们从里向外张望的视线，但却挡不住从外面照射进来的光线。检察官们坐在窗前，在明媚的春天和夏日里人们只能辨认出他们的轮廓。法庭上坐着三位身着黑色长袍的法官和六位陪审员。他们坐在大厅的正面，在他们右侧的长椅上坐着被告人和辩护律师。由于人数众多，桌椅一直摆到大厅中间，摆到了观众席前。有几位被告和辩护律师背对着我们坐着，其中就有汉娜。当她被传唤，站起来走向前面时，我才认出她来。当然，我立即就听出了她的名字：汉娜·史密芝。随后我也辨认出了她的形体，她的头，她的脖颈，她的宽阔的后背和她那强健有力的手臂，令我感到陌生的是那盘起来的头发。她站在那儿，挺着胸，两腿纹丝不动，手臂松弛下垂，穿着一件蓝色的短袖上衣。我认出了她，但是，我什么感觉都没有，我什么感觉都没有。
当法官问到她是否愿意站着时，她说是；当问她是否于一九二二年十月二十一日在赫尔曼市附近的一个地方出生，现年四十三岁时，她说是；当问她是否在柏林的西门子公司工作过并于一九四三年秋去了党卫队时，她说是。
"您是自愿去党卫队的吗？"
"是的。"
"为什么？"
汉娜没有回答。
"尽管西门子给您提供了一个做领班的职位，您还是去了党卫队，对吗？"
汉娜的辩护律师跳了起来："尽管'在这里是什么意思？这不就是假设一个女人应该更喜欢在西门子做个领班而不应该去党卫队吗？您没有任何理由就我的委托人的决定提出这样的问题。"
他坐下了。他是谁一的一位年轻的辩护人，其他人都上了年纪，有几位很快就暴露出来是老纳粹。汉娜的辩护人制止了他们使用隐语和推论。但是，他很急躁，这对他的委托人非常不利，就像他的同事们的满口纳粹论调对他们的委托人也十分不利一样。尽管他的话让审判长看上去不知所措，使他对汉娜为什么去了党卫队这个问题不再刨根问底，但是他的话给人留下一个印象，那就是，她去党卫队是经过深思熟虑的，并非迫不得已。一位陪审法官问了汉娜想在党卫队里做什么工作。汉娜解释说，党卫队在西门子和其他工厂征聘女工做替补看守，这样，她就报了名，并被录用了。尽管她做了这样的解释，但是，人们对她的不佳印象已无法改变了。
审判长要求汉娜用是与否来证实下列问题：是否直到一九四四年年初一直在奥斯威辛，是否于一九四四年与一九四五年之交的冬天被派往克拉科夫一所小集中营，与那里的被关押者一起西行并到达了目的地，是否在战争结束时到过卡塞尔，是否从那以后经常更换居住地。她在我的家乡住了八年，那是她居住时间最长的一个地方。
"经常更换居住地就能证明有逃跑的嫌疑吗？"辩护律师用很明显的讽刺口吻问道。"我的委托人每次更换居住地都在警察局登记和注销户籍。没有任何迹象说明她要逃跑，她也掩饰不了任何事情。逮捕法官认为我的委托人受到的指控严重，面临引起公愤的危险，他感到无法容忍。难道这可以成为剥夺她人身自由的理由吗？我尊敬的法官先生，这是纳粹时期抓人的理由，是纳粹时盛行的做法，纳粹之后被废除了，这种做法现在早已不存在了。"辩护律师说话时带有一种人们在兜售下流故事时所表现的不良用心和洋洋得意。
我对此感到震惊。我发现，我认为逮捕汉娜是自然的和理所当然的，不是因为人们对她提出了控告、严重谴责和强烈怀疑——关于这些我还一点不知详情，而是因为把她关在单人牢房里她就会从我的世界中，从我的生活中消失。我想离她远远的，让她远不可及，让在过去几年里成为我生活中的一部分的她变成一种记忆，仅仅是一种记忆。如果辩护律师成功的话，那就意味着我必须做好再次见到她的准备，我就必须使自己清楚我是否见她和如何见她。而且，我看不出他怎么能不成功。如果汉娜到目前为止没有企图逃跑，那么她为什么现在要去这么做呢？她能掩饰什么呢？这恰是逮捕她的一个理由。
审判长看上去又不知所措了。我发现这是他的一个计策。每当他认为某种意见具有阻碍性和令他感到不愉快时，他就摘掉眼镜，用近视的、不肯定的目光打量着发表意见的人，同时皱着眉头，或者避而不谈已经发表的意见，或者开始这样发问："您的意思是……"或"您是想说……"并用另一种方式重述一遍别人发表的意见，让人确实感到他对此不感兴趣，同时也使人相信逼他是没用的。
"您的意思是逮捕官错误地估计了下面的情况：被告人没有对书面的传讯做出反应，没有去找警察局、检查院和法官？您是想提交一份撤销逮捕令的报告吗？"
辩护律师提交了一份这样的报告，被法庭驳回了。
收听单词发音 |
1
proceedings
|
|
| n.进程，过程，议程；诉讼(程序)；公报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
defense
|
|
| n.防御，保卫；[pl.]防务工事；辩护，答辩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
defendants
|
|
| 被告( defendant的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
defendant
|
|
| n.被告；adj.处于被告地位的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
recording
|
|
| n.录音，记录 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
devoid
|
|
| adj.全无的，缺乏的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
pomposity
|
|
| n.浮华；虚夸；炫耀；自负 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
milky
|
|
| adj.牛奶的，多奶的；乳白色的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
prosecutors
|
|
| 检举人( prosecutor的名词复数 )； 告发人； 起诉人； 公诉人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
prosecutor
|
|
| n.起诉人；检察官，公诉人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
silhouettes
|
|
| 轮廓( silhouette的名词复数 )； （人的）体形； （事物的）形状； 剪影 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
unfamiliar
|
|
| adj.陌生的，不熟悉的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
enrolled
|
|
| adj.入学登记了的v.[亦作enrol]( enroll的过去式和过去分词 )；登记，招收，使入伍（或入会、入学等），参加，成为成员；记入名册；卷起，包起 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
Nazis
|
|
| n.（德国的）纳粹党员( Nazi的名词复数 )；纳粹主义 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
Nazi
|
|
| n.纳粹分子，adj.纳粹党的，纳粹的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
jargon
|
|
| n.术语，行话 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
zealous
|
|
| adj.狂热的，热心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
tirades
|
|
| 激烈的长篇指责或演说( tirade的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
sarcastic
|
|
| adj.讥讽的，讽刺的，嘲弄的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
agitation
|
|
| n.搅动；搅拌；鼓动，煽动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
custody
|
|
| n.监护，照看，羁押，拘留 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
malicious
|
|
| adj.有恶意的，心怀恶意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
irony
|
|
| n.反语，冷嘲；具有讽刺意味的事，嘲弄 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
jolted
|
|
| （使）摇动， （使）震惊( jolt的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
detention
|
|
| n.滞留，停留；拘留，扣留；(教育)留下 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |