probable origins of his
suffering in an upbringing which consisted almost exclusively of small acts of
neglect; of house, as a man of fifty, he still feels the child or little boy inside
him; of the girl he would like to have been; the satisfaction he derives from
wearing an apron; the fetishistic tendencies of the spoon-caresser; of paranoia, the
feeling of being surrounded and hemmed in; the sense, reminiscent of Josef K. in
The Trial
, that being observed made him interesting; and of the dangers
of idiocy arising, as he actually writes, from sexual atrophy. With seismographic
precision, he registers the slightest remorse at the edges of his consciousness,
records rejections and ripples in his thoughts and emotions about which the science
of psychiatry even today scarcely allows itself to dream. The narrator does not
think much of the therapies the mind doctor offers to the Robber, and still less of
the universal panacea of belief, which he terms a "perfectly simple, paltry
condition of the soul." "For," he says, "one achieves nothing by it, absolutely
nothing, nothing at all. One just sits there and believes. Like a person
mechanically knitting a sock." Walser is not interested in either the obscurantism
of the medicine men or of the other curators of the soul. What matters to him, like
any other writer in full possession of his faculties, is the greatest possible
degree of lucidity, and I can imagine how, which writing
The Robber
, it
must have occurred to him on more than one occasion that the looming threat of
impending darkness enabled him at times to arrive at an acuity of observation and
precision of formulation which is unattainable from a state of perfect health. He
focuses this particular power of perception not just on his own
via
dolorous
but also on other outsiders, persons excluded and eliminated, with
whom his alter ego the Robber is associated. His own personal fate concerns him
least of all. "In most people," the narrator says, "the lights go out," and he feels
for every such ravaged life. The French officers, for example, whom the robber once
saw in mufti in the resort town of Magglingen, three thousand feet above sea level.
"This was shortly before the outbreak of our not yet forgotten Great War, and all
these young gentlemen who sought and doubtless also found relaxation high up in the
blossoming meads were obliged to follow the call of their nation." How false, then,
the rolling thunder of "storms of steel" and all ideologically tainted literature
sounds, by comparison and with this one sentence with its discreet compassion.
Walser refused the grand gesture. On the subject of the collective catastrophes of
his day he remained resolutely silent. However, he was anything but politically
naïve. When, in the years preceding the First World War, the old Ottoman Empire
collapsed in the face of attacks by the reform party, the modern Turkey constituted
itself with one eye on Germany as a potential protector, Walser was more or less
alone in viewing this development with skepticism. In the prose piece "The Farewell"
(
Abschied
) he has the deposed Sultan––who is under no illusions about
the shortcomings of his régime––express doubts about the progress that has
apparently been achieved. Of course, he says, there will now be efficient folk at
work in Turkey, where chaos has always reigned, "but our gardens will wither and our
mosques will soon be redundant … (and) railways will criss-cross the desert where
even hyenas quailed at the sound of my name. The Turks will put on caps and look
like Germans. We will be forced to engage in commerce, and if we aren't capable of
that, we will simply be shot." That is more or less how things came to pass, too,
except that in the first genocide of our ill-fated century it was not the Turks who
were shot and put to death by the Germans, but the Armenians by the Turks. At
Janwillem van de Wetering