Revenge and Justice

Although the prospect of finishing Kleist’s Michael Kohlhaas on a ridiculously sunny weekend was near impossible, I found that despite all the intricate details of the history and the numerous names, the main story (that I personally got out of it) was the distinction between revenge and justice, and the danger of confusing the motives behind the two. To illustrate, the Junker’s detainment of his horses and the eventual death of his wife as an indirect result reasonably angered Kohlhaas. However, his anger was a medium in which he allowed that sole emotion to dictate his action. His method in rectifying the issue was through terror and active force that hindered off of revenge. Even though Kohlhaas “called on ‘every good Christian… to take up his cause against Junker von Tronka as the universal enemy of all Christians’, and promised them ‘pay and other perquisites of war’” (143), his interests were not for supporting justice but rather merely to sate his anger. Therefore, because Kohlhaas’ anger was so excessive, he allowed this passion to take over reason and placed achieving revenge over justice. Convinced that action and justice can be rooted in one source for motivation, Kohlhaas misconstrues individual responsibility and anger, thus resulting in irrational conceptions of justice.