Hind Swaraj

I was a bit upset by Ghandi's opinions of lawyers and doctors... Ghandi preaches seeing the humanity in everyone yet he fails to recognize it in lawyers' motives for becoming lawyers. He says that they are lazy and simply in it for the money. The other idea I did not like was Ghandi's statement that doctors help people indulge themselves and encourage an uncontrolled mind. Ghandi previously had argued that you cant blame someone else for your own actions... here, in criticizing the doctors' actions, he blames them for a lack of SELF-control. This is hypocritical, period.

Hind Swaraj

While reading Hind Swaraj, there were several things that I found very interesting. First, was the genre of a dialogue that Gandhi had chosen. The reader and editor combo makes the information more interesting and easier to understand. The reader asked questions similar to what I was thinking while reading. I believe that the reader is a representative of a large group of Indian people and he is able to express their beliefs and ideology. The second thing that I found interesting was the number of metaphors and comparisons that Gandhi used while trying to explain things to the reader. These metaphors made the explanation more clear because they were very simple. His comparisons were to everyday things that we can relate too. For example, the beginning of chapter eleven deals with the issue of the partition of Bengal. The comparison that Gandhi used was to a seed. He mentioned, "[The seed] works underneath the ground, is itself destroyed, and the tree which rises above the ground is alone seen." This helps explain the reader's question of who laid the foundation of Home Rule. Gandhi implies that there are always things happen in the matters of politics and government that happen behind the scenes. Overall, the genre and use of metaphors help better understand the ideology of Gandhi.

Hind Swaraj

Reading this was one the most difficult things to do. It was very hard to follow because it is in a question and answer format. I didn't really understand what was happening, or in what time period this was going on. However, some things did catch my eye.

In the foreward, the lines " The British Government in India constitutes a struggle between the Modern Civilisation, which is the Kingdom of Satan, and the Ancient Civilisation, which is the Kingdom of God. The one is the God of War, the other is the God of love."

This captured my attention the most because it really made me see the different perspectives a culture can have on another. It made me relate to the things right now in present day with Iraq. Alot of people in the Middle East, because of religion, deem the United States as a evil body of people. They take some of our religions, such as Christianity, and mock it. I have seen documentaries where a crowd of Iraqi's are yelling that the Americans are devils. The phrase "Kingdom of Satan" made me think about how that is the same idea other countries have of American right now. It was really interesting to read some of the things Ghandi wrote about because they were filled with such passion. Every response the editor had gave me the feeling that he knew what he was talking about, and that the editor believed every word he said.

I don't really understand alot of this work we are reading, so i'm pretty excited to learn more about it.

Junker and Kohlhaas

After reading the story, I pondered upon the idea of what kind of man the Junker was. At first glance, he seems like just a criminal, a no-good man with no moralistic intentions. However, after reading about his fleeings and his hiding, it is apparent that the Junker is a coward. This realization made me think about the type of man Kohlhaas was. In class discussion, it was very hard to differentiate between whether Kohlhaas's actions were to be admired or looked down upon. Also, were his actions justified by the loss of his wife and the unfair treatment of the law? I think to answer this, one must really look back upon their own morals. People can relate this situation to people on death row. Perhaps a serial killer murdered 2 families, but his justification was that his father had beat him as a child, is an audience supposed to feel sorry for the killer or angry and disgusted.
Kohlhaas did try to solve the problem by doing legitimate things, such as going to court. But, since the system was corrupt, Kohlhaas never received any unbiased representation. This could be a justification in itself. However, does that equal the lives of family and children that were lost to his rampage of upright anger? This question would have to then be connected to the loss of his wife. Here, I could feel more sympathy than the unfair law system. This is because he lost something he can never get back. A wife, a human being, is bigger and more significantly important than a couple of horses.
So, at the end of my analysis, I ended up with the thesis that the Junker is a coward and the Kohlhaas is someone that cannot be named good or bad, and if one wanted to put him in any category, it would be completely up to a personal bias.

Youth vs. Adult

While I was reading Chapter 1, Congress and its Officials, I realize the difference in wisdom between the reader and the editor. The editor represents the older age generation, while the reader resembles the youth of India. The dialogue showed the lack of respect and wisdom the youth has. This does not only apply to the youth of India, but youth in general. We tend not to show the deserved respect to our elders. In Congress and its Officials, the editor explains how "had not the Grand Old Man of India prepared the soil, our young men could not have even spoken about Home Rule." The reader's lack of respect and impatient draws criticism from the editor, who says that "if we had many like you, we would never make any advance," The editor also uses proverbs and saying to illustrate the difference in mentality between the age difference, and through these proverbs, we see wisdom. The editor reminds the reader to "remember the old proverb that the tree does not grow in one day." He uses this analogy to show the gradual growth of self-rule. It is "a matter of shame for that [the reader] should speak about that great man in terms of disrespect," because, the editor clarifies: "if, after many years of study, a teacher were to teach me something, and if I were to build a little more on the foundation laid by that teacher, I would not, on that acount be considered wiser than the teacher." This is the same case not only for the Old Man, but for other people who paved way for self rule. "If you are tired, it only betrays your impatience," explains the editor, "we believe that those who are discontented with the slowness of their parents, and are angry because the parents would not run with their children, are considered disrespectful to their parents." Because of this, we see the trouble with the youth and its mind-set. Although India wants self-rule, the youth and the adults have different ways of understanding it. This shows the trouble with 'doing' things. We must first think and know before we do. The youth should learn about the roots and seed the tree came from, and realize, "the tree does not grow in one day."

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.

Gandhi

Throughout Hind Swaraj, the reader is able to view the opinions of Gandhi through the dialogue between a newspaper reader and editor; it is understood that the editor is Gandhi and represents his ideals. The selected reading covers the “loss” of India to England, the loss of religious piety, and the dividing power of railways, as well as a host of other topics. Gandhi asserts that India’s status as an English colony is a result of their willingness to “keep” the English rather than the strength of English rule. Gandhi also states that England’s ability to increase the commerce was part of India’s inclination to allow India’s imperialism; he says that the poverty in India drove the citizens to be “tempted at the sight of their silver” (40). He also delves into the religious aspect by insisting that “many problems can be solved by remembering that money is [the English’s] God” (41). Gandhi expands on this idea of religion by stating that India’s poor condition is a direct result of its “becoming irreligious.” And although he admits that religious superstition and the wars it has incited are detrimental to society, he believes that civilization is even worse. He does not deny that the many different religious groups in India have their differences, but rather states that there is no area in the world with a homogenous group of people with the same ideologies. Another fault in civilization that Gandhi addresses is railways that he thinks divide the people in India in ways that weren’t present prior to the interference of the English. Railways are inherently disadvantageous to humanity because they defy God’s creation of man with limited ability to travel long distances; railways are “a distributing agency for the evil one only,” allowing the unfaithful ability to travel to holy areas easily. Basically, Gandhi believes that there are many obstacles that the Indian people need to overcome in order to achieve “Hind Swaraj” or Indian Home Rule.

Michael Kohlhaas: What is the moral of the strory?

So after finishing Michael Kohlhaas, I was left to ponder what exactly the moral of this story is. At first I thought that maybe the story was geared more towards pointing out the injustices in government, as we are told of a man, Kohlhaas, who is trying to make an honest living selling horses but is inhibited by a man of power, Junker Wenzel von Tronka, who then further uses his power to undermine the rights of Kohlhaas. With this idea of injustice in mind, we are able, to an extent, sympathize with Kohlhaas and understand what prompted his actions of revenge; however this complicates things as it turns the once innocent protagonist into, for me the antagonist. Kohlhaas’ actions can no longer be deemed as justifiable, as he is now the one creating injustice amongst the people and towns that he burns. Aside from all this, the story takes an even more interesting turn of events when Kohlhaas comes into possession of a prophecy of the Elector of Saxony. At this point I lose the idea that the ultimate moral of the story are the injustices in government, and I become rather confused with this development in the story as it doesn’t really relate to the rest of the earlier events. Regardless, in the end Kohlhaas is compensated for his earlier troubles although he himself must pay the price of death for the injustices he has caused, and so I guess I am left with the notion that perhaps one of the ultimate lessons in this story is to be aware that power blinds man of what is right. The Junker abuses his power when he undermines Kohlhaas and Kohlhaas abuses his power with his actions of revenge, because these men were in positions of power they exercised this without much regard to the morality of their actions, and so this is why I think that the story of Michael Kohlhaas is a story that elucidates how power corrupts man.

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.

discovering tasks

Here are some shorthand notes to the discovery task, if you want to make sure you get what was being asked of you.

1. What information about the author of the article is provided?
Not much. But we do get his university affiliation at the end of the article (as is standard in academic publishing), and we also get a reference to another publication he has on Arnold in footnote 33 (page 35), giving us the sense that he has worked a great deal on Arnold (which might confirm the fact that the article is secretly about Arnold). You can also that these publications are in or on Victorian Literature, giving you a sense that he is (in the language of the academy) a Victorianist. Now, what does this mean?

2. Summarize in a few sentences the thesis and major points that the author covers in the article.
done. see blog posting from Tuesday 4/15 discussion.

3. Is the evidence primarily from primary or secondary sources? Support your answer with examples.
Here it is important to keep in mind the relativeness of primary/secondary sources--secondary sources can also be primary sources. In Joseph's argument, all the Arnold/Hegel/Eliot/Woolf/Drabble texts are both. They are secondary in the sense that they "comment" on Sophocles' Antigone, but their comments on Antigone require the mediation/interpretation of Joseph. Thus they are treated by Joseph as "primary" sources.

4. Name one or two scholars mentioned in the article. Does the author agree or disagree with the scholars he or she cites.
Footnotes 1-37 reference a ton of scholars contemporary to Joseph. But none in the article--Mentioned in article I thought I found: W.F. Barry, author of The New Antigone: A Romance, but when I checked out the footnote, I found that it was actually written in 1887! So there are no scholars mentioned in the article! This is kind of shocking, since then Joseph doesn't do what you're being asked to do, which is to integrate secondary scholarly material with your own claim.

5. What is the subject focus of the journal that the argument in from?
In other words, what discipline does the journal deal with?: Literature--the PMLA is the publication of the Modern Language Association. http://www.mla.org/pmla. (The MLA is the professional organization through which aspiring literature graduate students apply for professorship jobs).

collecting mid-terms

I just want to start collecting material that could be important for the midterm--from lecture, lecture notes, blog postings, class discussions, study questions and the texts themselves. please feel free to post comments with questions or terms--

• the "dark," "darkness" and "death" in Antigone (remember Brecht's little Antigone poem and her stepping from the darkness
• Brecht's "dark times" in "To Posterity" (poem)
• the chorus of the Egyptian Antigone and the problem of spectators
• playing/doing--internal v. external
• who are the "confusers" of Brecht's longer poem from "The Antigone Legend"?
• problem of inaction or not doing anything (re: diagnostic)
• the crime of speaking about trees=not talking about injustices
• the Underworld (what kind of Hell is Hades?)
• glory, as religious vs. personal ideal
• Kowalke as anti-war figure
• Kowalke as symbol of universal sacredness of all human life
• types of claims--summative, descriptive, arguable (claim-y)
• "kerugma" (Kreon, Creon, Junker?)
• touchstones/antitouchstones
• "Doing As One Likes"
• epistemological crisis
• MK study questions--13 (Luther); 14 (social contract/outcast); 16 ("present public opinion and posterity"); 19 (overlapping jurisdictions); 20 (fairy tale from pp 190 on); 23 (significance of statement "are you satisfied with me?")
• Kleist's "we" (page 177, 205, other places?)
• unintentional suffering/casualities of war v. aiding fellow citizens
• revenge/justice
• living in a world that throws you down (psychotic action)
• thinking honorable/terrible in one sentence
• government inaction requires direct action?
• having sympathy for MK (re: Cholly Breedlove, Virginia Tech)
• desire for immediacy in a time of mediation (bureacracy)
• the violence of bureaucracy
• decision/certitude/doubt in MK (re: sense perception?)
• "swaraj"--home rule/self-government/self-improvement
• Gandhi's position on moderates and extremists
• passive resistance
• the role of suffering
• the law of religion (Gandhi's ethics)
• Gandhi's critique of modern civilization

Week Four: Assignments

Tuesday April 22
Reading: Gandhi
Writing: post blog to Gandhi readings, comment with research idea for topic on Research blog, peer review of working drafts

Thursday April 24
Reading: Gandhi
Writing: Final Draft Essay #7

Beginning Researches

Post an idea here--Art&Action/Music&Movements.

Claim Continuum

Here are the paraphrased claims I mentioned towards the end of class--contrast them with what you had, or what the groups had put up on the board. (So these are not "right" so to speak, since claims are very relative).

1 (page 22) Antigone is relevant because it is puzzling.
2 (page 23) Antigone's action (duty) is irrelevant, but her figure is relevant.
3 (page 25) Jospeh uses Eliot to show Antigone as inner needs.
4 (page 30) Even though art does not directly teach, the irrationality of Antigone is its appeal; art attests to the uncertainty of culture.
5 (page 31) Antigone's fidelity is the touchstone.
6 (page 32) Hegel and Arnold are defenders of stable community, Antigone is an anarchist and maybe we should be too.

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.

Kolhaas

As I read Michael Kolhaas I found that it was tedious at times – all the Earls and Junkers that played parts throughout the story. However, I found the story an enjoyable one, despite all the various characters and intricacy of the many levels of hierarchy.

Kolhaas as a character reminded me a lot Cholly, from Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye. Although, the two are not completely similar, both Michael Kolhaas and Cholly evoke a type of empathy, or sympathy towards their character’s dilemma. Morrison decided to dedicate a chapter in her novel to offer background of Cholly’s life, and sort of give reasons for why he became the man he was. Although not meant to justify Cholly’s brutality towards his wife and daughter, Pecola, we as readers are still given the choice to understand how and why Cholly became such a negative and violent person. Kolhaas as well, had reasons for why he did what he did. He led a group of people he convinced to follow him and together they raided a town and caused a lot of havoc, all since Kolhaas did not get the justice he believed he deserved for the pain that was caused him by the Junker Wenzel von Tronka. And so both Cholly and Kolhaas have a background and a reasoning that makes sense to them, for their actions. Yet despite this one similarity, Kolhaas is also quite different from Cholly. While you do feel for Cholly, I did not completely side with him and his actions of abuse towards his daughter.

While reading Kleist’s short story, I found myself rooting for Kolhaas – even sad when he met his untimely end to repent the crimes he committed, all to receive fairness for the ills that were treated him by the Junker Wenzel von Tronka. And because Kolhaas put trust in the Junker when he told him he was to have a permit to cross the border, and leaving his two black horses as collateral, Kolhaas endured many losses - the untimely death of his wife, the later death of his friend and groom Herst, and the unhealthy state of his horses when neglected and used as farm animals. However, despite the violence and damages Kolhaas caused in his fight for justice, I still wanted him to succeed. Kolhaas had his final laugh even in the face of the Junker, having been sent to two years of prison, and having the task of restoring Kolhaas' two "blacks". Even towards the Elector, when Kolhaas strode up to him in his last moments before his execution, and ate the paper within the locket with the contents of important information vital to the Elector. To some, Kolhaas may be a ruthless and unruly man who was wiling to do anything to get what he wanted, but that is just it – he fought hard for what he believed in. And no matter what the cost, Kolhaas, in the end, finally had his horses restored, which was what he had fought for for so long since the beginning.

Week Three: Assignments

Tuesday April 15
Reading: Heinrich von Kleist, Michael Kohlhaas
Writing: Ideas Draft essay #7

Thursday April 17
Reading: Heinrich von Kleist, Michael Kohlhaas
Writing: Working Draft essay #7 (3 copies)

***sign up for office hours: Tuesday 10:30-12:30, 2-4; Thursday 10:30-12:30 (to discuss ideas draft and research ideas)

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.

basis for action: doing as one likes?

Joseph presents an argument for the contemporary relevance of Antigone through the lens of Hegel, Matthew Arnold, George Eliot, Virginia Woolf, and Margaret Drabble. This involves a great variety of claims--summative, descriptive, and arguable, as well as implict/explicit. In class we made it through coming up with a research questions. The general question involves the prompt's language of the "basis for action" within Sophocles' drama. Your more particular group interests dealt with:

• antigone as individual, inspired by personal interests?
• law of Creon?
• religion as possible basis for action?
• kinship and loyalty to brother but not husband, kids (or sister?)?
• antigone as egotistical?

You can see that these are not phrased as nicely as your questions in class, but I just wanted to mark our starting point. From here, lots of development is possible, both for your individual papers and ideas and for your groups' collective refinement of the question. We will continue with this work on Thursday, since we did not get to the claims part of the Joseph article.

Note here that you will of course be thinking of how your personal ideas relate to and differ from the things you discuss as a group. You will want to really "use" the group work in terms of getting ideas, but of course the successful essay depends upon your development and elaboration of your own ideas--claims, evidence, and warrants all included!

Please post any questions (words or phrases or concepts you don't quite get) as comments, if you have them. Questions about the essay of course perfectly acceptable.

Antigone in an Ancient Light

Reading Gerhard’s article and Brecht’s poem got me thinking about the contemporary context Antigone would have had in the ancient world. Gerhard claims that Antigone’s defense for her efforts to bury Polyneikes is not strong to a modern audience. This is true, but probably not in the case of ancient audience. In the historical novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms, one of the four Chinese classics, the main character, Liu Bei, at one point berates his general, Zhao Yun, after a battle. Zhao Yun had charged deep into the enemy lines to rescue Liu Bei’s wife and infant son; however, Liu Bei, angered that Zhao Yun had ‘unnecessarily’ risked his life, exclaims that, ‘Wives and children are as clothing, but brothers are as limbs.’ Sophocles mirrors this sentiment when he has Antigone explain that she would not have gone to the reaches she has for Polyneikes if it was a husband or child that had died – since they can be ‘replaced’, while a brother cannot be.
On another note, the main conflict in Antigone – her desire to bury her brother’s body – can be seen as a subtle criticism of the Achaemenid Persian Empire, which had just lost the Greko-Persian War (498-448BC) by the time Sophocles wrote Antigone (around 442BC). For the official religion of the Achaemenids, Zoroastrianism, forbade burying or cremating the body after death, as earth and fire were viewed as sacred and could not be ‘corrupted’ by the ‘un-pure’ flesh. Instead, the dead were exposed to the elements atop of open-air constructs called ‘Towers of Silence’, where they were left to rot until only the bones remained – at which point the bones could be interred. This belief was the polar opposite of the religious practices of the Greeks, who considered it a most vile act to leave the body exposed. Thus, Sophocles’ Creon can be seen as the Persian ‘King of Kings’ imposing his will over the Greeks if they had lost the Greko-Perisan War and would reinforce the Hellenic prejudice of considering all non-Greeks as ‘barbarians’.