ers, Seeley Mudd Manuscript Library, Princeton, box 37, file 1; no changes except for minor spelling corrections and the insertion of paragraph breaks.) 24 Chalfont Road, Oxford. 2nd. January, 1946. Dr. iur. Fritz R. Pringsheim, formerly Professor in the Faculty of Law (Göttingen, 1923-1929, Freiburg I. Br 1929-1935). Statement concerning Carl Langbehn LANGBEHN was one of my pupils in Göttingen with whom I soon came into contact end who was my friend until April 1939 when I left Germany.
I soon became aware that he was a young man of great gifts, but at the same time one in danger. He was the son of an “Auslandsdeutscher”, a German living in a foreign country; born somewhere in South America if I correctly recollect, in any case a boy for whom it seemed difficult to subject himself to the restricted and narrow life in the after-war-Germany.
The simple life of a “bourgeois” without any opportunity of adventure and danger seemed boring for him, and I was very glad that nevertheless he paused with good success his two examinations, Referendar in Celle, Assessor in Berlin. Meanwhile he made his degree as Dr. iur. in Göttingen under my special guidance and became my assistant in Göttingen.
He was a charming young man, full of good humour, vigorous and interested in many good things, often a little desperate and doubtful if he would have a chance to show that he could achieve. He was an intimate guest in my house, a friend of Mrs Pringsheim and my boys, always helpful and with pleasure prepared to every service he could do.
As he felt responsible for his mother who was as poor as he himself he could not afford to follow his wish to begin his career as a civil servant, but had to become solicitor. As a young man who worked for a poor salary in a solicitor’s office he had once to represent the solicitor who took a 4-weeks holiday and left to him cases of minor importance only. But since he fell ill during these weeks, more difficult cases had. to be handled by Langbehn. This was his chance.
He worked so well that the solicitor after his return offered him a more permanent co-operation. Langbehn accepted., but under the condition that his salary would be doubled.. The solicitor at once agreed. Afterwards he told me that he owed his best instruction during this time to a Jewish solicitor. When I left Göttingen for Freiburg our connection became more loose, but I was always in correspondence with him.
It may have been in 1933 that I read in the newspapers that he defended a German minister of the republique against an accusation made by the Nazis that he had embezzled money belonging to the Hindenburg-Trust which this minister had administrated. I have forgotten his name.
The accusation was of course a pretext to remove this man, and I won the impression that it was rather courageous to take over the defence against the Nazis in such a well-known case which lasted for more than a year and was at last decided by a High Court, As far as I remember the accused was not acquitted; such a decision was almost impossible at this time; but he was condemned to a very moderate punishment only, which was declared to be expiated by the imprisonment on remand.
When I met him later L. told me that he had been asked by two members of the Communist party to defend the leader of their party, Torgler , if I am not mistaken, in the lawsuit in connection with the burning of the Reichstag; that he had been prepared to defend him and had several conferences with theme two men; until they brought him a cheque in Dutch guilders to a Dutch bank, saying that after having defended Torgler he would probably not be able to stay in Germany, and that the high amount
of the cheque was meant to be used outside Germany. Langbehn was so offended by this offer and the pre¬sumption that he should defend Torgler for money and not only for the sake of protecting justice, he was so shocked by the supposition that he would not be courageous enough to stand the risk that he cut short the discussion and refused to continue the preparation of the defence. This story characterizes the man. I don’t know at what time he became a member of the Nazi party.
I conjecture he jointed the party because he thought that with its help a new Germany could be built, that as a member only he could influence the political direction and that he would be strong enough to withstand measures and tendencies dangerous and detrimental for Germany. What so many others pretended to intend by joining he really felt. I saw him again when we came to live in Berlin after my dismissal from my chair in Freiburg.
We found him cheerful, unchanged, trusting us and full of hope for the future of Germany. He lived in a charming house in Dahlem which showed his great esteem for art, his good taste and the modesty so rarely combined with new wealth. His young wife, beautiful and highly cultivated, charmed us. Three delightful children were gratefully and seriously educated. He had meanwhile become interested in