Storytelling in Michael Kohlhaas

The thing that struck me most about Heinrich von Kleist's Michael Kohlhaas, was the style in which it was written. Interestingly (I used this word a lot in posting blogs here as well as commenting on the blogs!), it reminded me of books I used to read as a little kid...more specifically collections of fairy or folk tales. It just has that certain air. Not much dialogue is expressed within quotations. The writing seems to have a certain consistent, continuous flow and is filled with constant action, and constantly updates the reader on the usually intense emotions ("extreme indignation," "utter consternation") of the protagonist. This style made the story more fun to read.

I haven't finished reading the entire story yet, but so far, I am surprised to find the character of Kohlhaas not too difficult to relate to. His impatience, his being forced to submit to authorities - especially when he himself has reason to think highly of himself, see himself as an authority as well to some extent (read the very first paragraph on the very first page), and his stunned, angry reaction to the misuse of his own property, force me to recall certain situations in my own life in which I felt strongly tempted to take actions that would possibly ruin the lives of people around me (or at least cause a major disturbance!). Not that I think Kohlhaas' actions were justified...but I can at least understand how he felt...as most people are probably able to.

The Reasoning Behind the Horses

The idea i want to start with at this time is the idea of humane treatment of animals. While i was reading the Kohlhauss text, one of the main things that caught my eye was the descriptions of the desolate blacks that were treated poorly. At this time, it may seem like a complete trifle compared to the idea of defiance of a state, but i feel that it is something that is not focused on enough. Basically Kohlhauss had many wrongs done unto him by the Junker Wenzel von Tronka, one of these was the disrespect of his horses. It could be seen from the text that Kohlhauss, as a horse-raiser, was a very respectable and honest person. It can be noted that he had many connections with a variety of high-class noblemen of Dresden. The question presented here is that is this enough grounds for him to go and present a case against the Junker. The fact that even the nobility ignored his request shows the wrongs that were being done in the area. The connection i find between this is that Kohlhauss, like Antigone, are attempting to go against the "state" in order for something that is dear to him: horses? The truth though, is not the fact that it is the horses that are important to him, but the principle. He stands for justice and honor in the story and it can clearly be seen in this.

Michael Kohlhaas

I found this story a bit hard to follow; since there were no chapter or even separations between the scenes or anything. I kept in mind the theme of this quarter "Doing" while I was reading it and quickly learned that Michael Kohlhaas was doing something alright, he was doing a lot of things. He was actually doing too many things, that I gave up keeping track. But this story is appropriate for this quarter's theme since everything he does has an impact, whether its on himself, his family, innocent victims, or his followers. He was someone whose every action made a difference. He was a moral and just man who was wronged on so many levels beyond his control, but also became this merciless person who was clouded by vengeance and resentment. It seemed like he started following this sort of selfish philosophy of: If I can't be happy and have to suffer, then no one else can be happy either and will therefore have to suffer with me. I found myself more curious about his thoughts and reasoning than I did about whether or not his actions were ultimately justified. In the beginning of the story, the author makes Kohlhaas seem like a patient law-abiding citizen, but then somewhere along the way he transforms into this revolutionary figure (even though it was probably unintentional) for the citizens. Which sort of reminds me of V for Vendetta, except V was a more clever and interesting character who was actually trying to make a difference. But anyways for Kohlhaas, it seems like the author makes an example out of him; which is something the authorities do to keep the people in line so they won't be encouraged to follow his actions. Although, I guess his death can be justified because went running around setting villages on fire; and I can't recall if the story says there were casualties.

Michael Kohlhaas is crazy

So after reading this "short story" (it's not short enough), I've decided that Michael Kohlhaas can be compared to Antigone as they both act irrationally and take very extreme action to get their points across. First of all, they both break the law - Antigone with the law of not burying her brother and Kohlhaas with his murdering spree. But while Antigone does it for "honor," Kohlhaas does it for "justice." It all relates back to family vs state. Kohlhaas didn't start breaking the law and taking action into his own hands until his wife was killed. The difference between Antigone and Kohlhaas, however, is that I feel that Kohlhaas loses his purpose as the story progresses. It starts with him wanting justice, but then he ends up acting out of revenge. His irrational actions of killing innocent people and burning different towns to find the Junker seemed like it was more for revenge than justice. However, this can be seen as a kind of rebellion against the corrupt government. It is hard to follow this story and the reasons why Kohlhaas acts the way he does, but the most I got from it is that he wanted revenge for his wife, reminding me of Antigone's actions to honor her brother. Even though they are both, in a way, honoring their family, by killing or dying for the death of their loved ones, Antigone never broke out of her purpose. I think that is why Kohlhaas cannot really be seen as the good guy. He is the victim in the beginning, but he makes himself the criminal in the end by acting irrationally and losing his purpose.

Michael Kolhaas

Although written in the early 19th century, “Michael Kolhaas” is set in the 16th century, contemporary with the infamous Weinsberg massacre and peasants’ revolt that occurred during the era. Despite the moral foundation of the revolt led by the German peasants and by Michael Kolhaas, each represents a detachment from the initial objective and a shift toward surrendering restraint and acting on frustration and anger. In my opinion, “Michael Kolhaas” offers a sympathetic view of the horse dealer’s ordeal and rather than condoning it, depicts the consequences of rash action. Throughout the plot of the story, the injustices that Kolhaas suffers are quite apparent; for example, he is forced to leave his two black horses as collateral before crossing the border and has them returned only to discover that they have become weak and unhealthy from completing field work for the Junker von Tronka. Kolhaas is not bitter at first, with his “sense of justice […] still waver[ing]” and does not immediately jump to conclusions before hearing both sides of the story (120). Furthermore, Kolhaas is understanding of the “imperfection inherent in the order of the world,” and accepts this apparent wrongdoing; his primary motive for seeking justice is a pure one: he sought “protection for his fellow citizens against such wrongs in the future” (121). The inclusion of this purpose evokes sympathy and prevents the reader from assuming a selfish objective. Finally, he attempts to take legal action against the Junkers, but nepotism overcomes his righteous intentions when the Junker’s relatives’ higher authority hinders his efforts. The German peasants in the 16th century attempted similar legal action with their “Twelve Articles”; however, when the German nobles refused the document, the peasants retaliated by impaling as many nobles as possible. Kolhaas similarly seeks revenge by burning down many towns; in both cases, the noble motives that had initiated the cause are tarnished by the petty attempts at revenge. Both the German peasants and Michael Kolhaas suffer the consequences when higher authorities retaliate with force and end their lives.

'Justice' in Michael Kohlhaas

Michael Kohlhaas suffered injustly at the hand of the law because of Junker Wenzel von Tronka's relations to the law. He was lied to about obtaining a permit, and had his horses and groom abused. Being unable to resolve the problem through the justice system, he sought to take measures into his own hand. His personal revenge set many towns on fire and took many lives. He went through all this for "punishment [for] the Junker according to the law; the restoration of the horses, and damages for what [he] and Herse suffered from the violence that was done to [them]." As Martin Luther explained in the short story, Kohlhaas had "borrowed sums running into thousands, against bills and securities, from Jews and Christians alike, to pay for [his] savage personal revenge. " Luther asks Kohlhaas, "Will you add them to your account as well when the reckoning is made?" This shows the injustice Kohlhaas served to the people by getting them involved in his revenge as he sought for compensation for his. Will the people who suffer at his hand too receive compensation for the chaos and destruction Kohlhaas caused? Despite being robbed of his rights at the hands of Junker Wenzel von Tronka, Kohlhaas took out his anger out not only on Junker, but innocent people. In the end, Kohlhaas is justly beheaded for the violence he caused. Before he is beheaded, upon seeing his horses restored, he assures the High Chancellor that "his dearest wish on earth had been fulfilled," knowing that Junker has undo his injustice. Kohlhaas' death too is, in a way, undoing all the trouble he caused. With this, we see the natural tendency of how justice is served in the end.

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.

Kohlhaas Reading

In my opinion, Kolhlaas journey is about a man who is out to set right the problems of the government. He also explores the intertwined relationships between people in the government and how this effects the way that law should be properly carried out. Kohlhass personality makes a complete 360 throughout the novel. In the beginning, he is a law-abiding citizen who is very calm and collected in difficult situations. An example of this is when he finds out that a permit is not required. He is not bitter and he calmly goes back to get his horses, not wanting to cause any problems. Later, he sends a letter to the government asking them to punish Wenzel von Tronka for his behavior but Kolhlass plea is turned down because the two government officials are related to Wenzel von Tronka. From this point forward, Kolhlaas becomes a completely different person. He does not listen to the last words of his wife, instead he does the complete opposite. He does not forgive his enemy and goes on to do tons of damage to different cities. Kolhlaass goes to get revenge agaisnt Tronka and in doing so, he becomes a murder and a "vexatious litigant" (a troublesome person that part of a lawsuit). He believes that by taking revenge on Tronka and destroying homes and tones of innocent people, he is going toreceive justice in the end.

Kohlhaas

As I am still in the process of completing the reading of Heinrick Von Kleist’s Michael Kohlhaas, I wanted to reflect on my surprise of the turn of events so far in the story. The story begins by praising Michael Kohlhaas, and by introducing him as an honorable, honest, and well-liked man. But to cause an immediate interest and twist to the story that has only just begun, Kohlhaas is also said to be a terrible man. In the very first sentence to begin the story, it states: “Michael Kohlhaas… who was one of the most honoruable as well as one of the most terrible men of his age.” Not to mention, the first paragraph is concluded with “but his sense of justice made him a robber and a murderer.” The key word in this statement is “justice.” Before continuing on in the story, I am already biased to seeing events, whether they are good, terrible, honorable, or even of murder, as being part of Kohlhaas and his actions for justice. As the story continues, Kohlhaas’ fight for justice is portrayed through his stubbornness to fight for what he believes is right, regardless of the consequences or laws against it. This desire for justice and for what is right is similar to that of Antigone’s desire for justice and what is right; she’s believes her brother deserves a proper burial because it is the right thing to do and regardless of the “laws” against it; Kohlhaas wants to bring justice to Tronka Castle so they can not bring injustice to others that pass through and to fight against the inhuman treatment done to his horses, regardless of the “laws” of Tronka Castle and of the political ties the von Tronka’s have.

Michael Kohlhaas Response

In Michael Kohlhaas, Kleist first describes him as “the most honourable as well as one of the most terrible men of his age.” (p. 114) At this very paradoxical statement in the beginning of the story, one must ask how a man can be both “honorable” and “terrible” when the two characteristics seem to conflict. However, the incident with the two black horses and Junker Wenzel von Tronka explains the cause for the description due to the fat that it alters Kohlhaas’ life forever thereafter. The event was, in fact, an injustice done by Junker von Tronka and that he had done similar damages to other travelers. So naturally, I expected either the Junker von Tronka himself or some form of authority to settle the matter, as it would only be fair. However, neither occurred and Junker von Tronka thought himself too mighty and rich to be required to pay Kohlhaas fairly. And although Kohlhaas was “determined to seek redress in a public court of law,” (p. 126) this goal was never realized. Every single appeal to authority he made was dismissed because Junker von Tronka’s relatives were those in authority. Even Lisbeth, Kohlhaas’ wife, tried to give a letter about the matter with von Tronka, to the elector himself; however, she was struck by a guard’s lance and later died. Up until this point, I was truly sympathetic towards Kohlhaas’ situation. He had done everything in a peaceful, logical manner trying to gain justice for von Tronka’s actions.
But instead of heeding his wife’s last words from the bible, “‘Forgive your enemies; do good also onto them that hate you,’” (p. 137) Kohlhaas did the exact opposite. He never forgave Junker von Tronka and went on a killing and pillaging spree with his followers in an attempt to murder him. At this point, Kohlhaas’ logic had shattered. After losing his beloved wife and selling all his property, there was nothing really left for him to lose. Though his actions were violent, it was the unfair feudal system that drove Kohlhaas towards such action. And if one cannot get the government to help with an issue or injustice, sometimes direct action and protest is necessary. However, I only wish that Kohlhaas found another way to act instead of hurting innocent people. The loss of homes and lives was not worth the two black horses. Kohlhaas should have realized that his wife was trying to tell him to let the incident go and just move on. But also, the government should have settled the matter fairly in the first place. Thus, in a sense, Kohlhaas got his goal by the end of the story, but also had to be executed for his own unjust actions.

What is Kohlhaas Doing?

In the story by Kleist, Michael Kohlhaas, the reader is first presented with a description of an extremely moral character. The story that follows about Kohlhaas's issues with the Junker and the courts' bias reflects the impossible situation of two conflicting "rights." The first is that Kohlhaas has been mistreated and should stand up for fair treatment and the second is that there is no conceivable way to handle the situation, according to Kohlhaas, without destroying something. Kohlhaas, as he must, chooses the path to stand up for what is right and goes to harm or kill the Junker. When he kills and harms all of the property of the Junker and the people there EXCEPT the Junker, he moves on to find the Junker and continues to destroy and pillage and plunder everything in his path. Here is where Kohlhaas loses sight of what he set out to do. Here is where his actions no longer reasonably reflect his purpose. Fast forward to the end of the story, when Kohlhaas is killed because of his communication with Nagelschmidt, he pays for taking his destruction too far.