I hope you have an incendiary weekend. Here's the map I made of "Michael Kohlhaas"... you might need to zoom out a couple of times and put it on "Terrain" mode to get the modern cities & roads out of the way.
Here's the Europe-in-1560 map I gave you Friday, and here's the Europe-in-1800 map... note that Saxony is more or less the same, but Brandenburg has unified with Prussia (where Kleist is from).
KICKOFF: Mark (lecture), Roselaine (book)
READ: "Kohlhaas" 163-213... answer assigned study question
IDEAS DRAFT: Sunday night (before 10 p.m.)
WORKING DRAFT: Thursday night (before 8 p.m.)
AM I CRAZY: Or is this Radiohead song about Michael Kohlhaas?
This is what I believe to be the stances held by each of the high ranking officials, in regards to Kohlhaas’ case. Feel free to add to it. (p.157-160)
ReplyDeleteAfter speaking with Martin Luther, Kohlhaas promised to disperse the troops at Lutzen Castle only if his case would be reopened to the Saxon High Court. Luther then decided to send a letter to the Elector of Saxony stating the only way to disperse Kohlhaas' army and stop the raids was to provide him amnesty (a pardon granted for offenses) so that he could reopen his case. The letter was received by the Elector at the palace of Prince Chrisiern of Meissen where a number of high state officials have met; each with their own opinion as to Luther's request for Kohlhaas:
1. The Chamberlain, or Lord Kunz Von Tronka, is the privy councillor, or private advisor, of the elector who happens to be related to Wenzel Von Tronka. He was the first to initially dismiss Kohlhaas' case, and he claims that he did so, on account of receiving information that the case was, "an idle piece of trouble-making". His stance is that Kohlhaas has caused far too much destruction to be permitted amnesty and if they did permit amnesty, Kohlhaas would be seen by the public as right in his pursuit, while the disgrace would fall upon the Elector. He would rather see Junker fatten Kohlhaas' horses than to see Kohlhaas being pardoned for his crimes.
2. The Grand Chancellor of the High Court, or Count Wrede, believes that the only through this situation is by, "plain fair dealing". He believes that the Elector should comply with Luther's letter. Count Wrede eventually convinces the Elector to do, saying that Kohlhaas' public support will only continue to grow if they refuse his request.
3. Prince Christiern of Meissen, also called the Imperial Marshal, who is the owner of the castle supports the Chamberlain's view. He wishes to assemble an army to defeat Kohlhaas' troops at Lutzen castle. However, when the Chamberlain announces that he is glad how the Prince agrees with him, the Prince shows sympathy towards Kohlhaas, saying how his grievances, "were perfectly just". He also adds how the Chamberlain is initially to blame and should be arrested for misuse of the sovereign's name.
4. The President of the State Chancellery, Count Kallheim, is also related to Wenzel Von Tronka. He doesn't provide his opinion, but says Prince Friedrich, Prince Christiern's nephew, should have a say in Kohlhaas' fate, since he was defeated at Muhlberg by Kohlhaas' army. However, Prince Friedrich doesn't say anything.
5. Lord Hinz Von Tronka, also related to Wenzel Von Tronka, is the Cupbearer (the person in charge of serving the drinks and made sure that the king's cup was not poisoned). He provides a remedy for both sides of the argument, saying that Kohlhaas should be allowed his request to have, "a safe-conduct to Dresden and a renewed examination of his case". However, he states that after Kohlhaas' requests have been met, there was nothing to stop them from, "locking Kohlhaas on charges of arson and robbery".
In the end, the Elector, who is hesitant about launching an attack on Kohlhaas' army at Lutzen due to what Prince Christiern said, is eventually persuaded by Count Wrede to accept Martin Luther's advice.
The terms of the agreement is that Kohlhaas's case would be allowed to be reexamined and if he should win, he must disassemble his army. In return, Kohlhaas and all his soldiers will be granted amnesty against all their crimes. If he should lose, however, he must surrender to the law and to any prosecution that may be sentenced.
Phewww. Hope this helps.
21. (199-202) What details does the Elector supply to complete the story of the gypsy woman?
ReplyDeleteHe was with the Elector of Brandenburg who decided to play a joke and test the gypsy woman to see if she could really tell fortunes. She foretold that a roebuck, meant for the Dresden kitchen, would come meet them in the marketplace. Well, this roebuck was under lock and key, and the Elector then sent a messenger to tell them to kill it immediately and serve it for dinner. He then turns back to the gypsy woman, who, upon request, tells him that his future will be a very happy one. “Your Highness will rule for many years, the house of your ancestors will flourish for many generations, and your descendants will become great and glorious and will achieve power above all the princes and lords of the world!” (200). After hearing this, he turns to the Elector of Saxony (who is telling the Chamberlain the story) and says he’s sorry he sent the messenger because now because it would now invalidate his prophecy. She then foretells the Elector of Saxony’s future, which is very grim. Instead of telling him, however, she asks if he would like it written down. On the piece of paper, she reveals: “the name of the last ruler of [his] dynasty, the year in which he will lose his throne, and the name of the man who will seize it by force of arms” (201). But instead of giving him this information, she tells him that the man by the doorway, with the plumed hat, will sell it to him. Then she leaves and disappears into the crowd. After the gypsy’s departure, the messenger returns to relay the news that the roebuck has been slaughtered. This gives him great relief, because now her initial promise of it coming to meet them will not come true, thus meaning that her other prophecies were shams. But then a dog appears who had stolen the roebuck’s head and drops it in front of him. The gypsy has then proven herself.
QUESTION FROM LISTSERV:
ReplyDeleteI missed the part where you were talking about what Hegel would say in Antigone's or Kohlhaas's case. What I got from Kohlhaas was that he both regressed and progressed (moved forward) to the past and to the future respectively but why/how?
AARON'S ANSWER:
The possible regression is from the form of politics in the Holy Roman Empire (which is basically a medieval-feudal-agricultural system that is starting to organize itself into something more like a modern political state, with lots of coordination and trade between the cities/regions) to an earlier time of biblical miracles and prophecies (direct intervention of angels on earth) or to an earlier time of viking-like incendiary raids etc.
The possible progression is from a form of politics in which there is no such thing as the "individual," basically a feudal system in which the only "real" people are the aristocrats, monarchs, etc. (note the similarity between "real" and "royal" in romance languages like Spanish and French), to a new form of politics in which the individual has inborn rights. That's why I said that it's possible to look at Kohlhaas as the advent of the modern political individual, as Descartes can represent the advent of the modern philosophical "ego," Luther the modern religious individual (indiv. relationship to God rather than intermediate through priests), Shakespeare or Alberti the modern artistic individual, etc.
Of course, you have to consider that the story was written in the early 1800s, around Hegel's time. So Kleist is giving his own story about historical progression or regression, for his own reasons. Besides asking why he hates Saxony so much, we might ask whether Kleist believes historical progress is possible. That's why Hart keeps referring to Rousseau in her lectures and study questions... Rousseau is a French philosopher in the late 1700s who helped conceptualize the modern individual in politics. (Influential on the American revolution and the French revolution, among other things.) Kohlhaas obviously can't "follow" Rousseau's ideas, but he could be like a preview of those ideas, or I guess more like a symbol of those ideas as Kleist looks backward in history.
25. Did you ever grow impatient with Kleist's narrator as you were reading "MK"? Do you have any advice for him on how to tell a story?
ReplyDeleteI thought that the first half of "MK" was pretty easy to read and had little confusion on what was happening. However, by the second half I, personally, felt at times very lost. Examples: When Kohlhaas was being transferred for court and their is suddenly a tale of a gypsie and a piece of paper, I was confused on who that Elector was and why this locket(?) was suddenly a huge part of the story. [It took a complete turn and seemed like a completely different story.] And I thought that the piece of paper he possessed was supposed to save his life (pg.192), but he still ended up dying in the end. Oh!, and why in the knacker's possession of the two black horses in the situation for the Junker and cousins had suddenly turned for the worse.
Anyways, I thought that their could have been a clearer plot line and it definitely should not have been written in parts! My advice would be have a definite story line/plot and not suddenly turn the events so suddenly and without much background on the new material.
(PS: I'm a horrible story teller and generally go off on many tangents :}
Discussion Question 3: Why doesn't the law work by itself here? Remember, even MK has "friends" who support the original lawsuit. What is the effect of all of these interventions on our understanding of justice in this society? Identify a few and draw conclusions.
ReplyDelete[Before I answer this, I have to say that this book is really very confusing in the second half, so I probably missed a lot of the important content of story. That said, I'll answer this to the best of my ability. :) ]
I believe that the law doesn't function properly in this society due to all of the levels of power and the corruption that exists within each one of them. Every level vies for power (the Junkers, the Electors, etc.) and tries to carve out a place for itself. Of, course each level has its own competing interests, which is why the lawsuit takes so many steps and has intervention on so many levels. Because of all of these interventions, the audience sees this society as one that has been overrun with a lust for power. With each level competing, nothing can get done, so this is obviously not an efficient way for a society to be run. Kleist means this to be a critique of power in HIS society, but shows this through his story set in the sixteenth century, where there was also a prominent power struggle. I believe that Kleist wants to show how having too many conflicting interests with regards to power can lead to destruction, which is exactly what happens. Each character is almost obsessed with his/her own interest (as seen with the locket/paper portion of the story), and with this going on, nothing of use can really get done. There are so many letters going back and forth that I could hardly follow them (if I followed them at all... haha), which leaves me with the impression that no one really communicates that well with each other, causing mass confusion, which results in the interventions. The law in this story doesn't seem to function by itself because it is sliced up by all the levels of power that nothing can really get done.
20. (190-95) The rest of the story may remind you of a fairy tale and you may be surprised by all of the coincidences. How does the Elector of Saxony find out about the piece of paper in the lead locket around MK's neck?
ReplyDeleteThe Elector of Saxony and his wife Heloise learned from the Lord Sheriff that Kohlhaas and the Brandenburg calvarymen were staying at the farmhouse nearby because one of Kohlhaas children had fallen ill. On their way to watch the great stag-hunt resume, they realized that their assigned guide had lead them through the yard of the farmhouse where Kohlhaas was lodged. After assuring the Elector that no one would be able to recognize him in his huntsman's costume, both Heloise and the Elector made their way to see the unsuspecting Kohlhaas in the farmhouse, where he was sitting on a bale of straw, feeding his child. As Heloise was questioning Kohlhaas about his situation, the Elector noticed the small leaden locket hanging by a silken thread around Kohlhaas' neck and asked him what it signified and what was in it. Kohlhaas then proceeded to tell them where he received the locket, and the Elector was reminded of the unfortunate prophecy the gypsy (who had been the same person to give Kohlhaas the locket) had said about him.
SQ : Why did Kleist have a problem with Saxony?
ReplyDeleteThis question was made up by Aaron and we never got to get to the map exercises in class so I'm going to try my very best in answering this question. So far all I have come up with is that Kohlhaas has all sorts of enemies from Saxony. Dresden, Liten and Vitensbirg are three major cities in which Kohlhaas has the msot trouble with. In the story though, Kohlhaas' allies are all from Brandenburg which is Kleist's hometown. So Kliest incorporated his hometown into his tale to be a place of good and moral leadership/leaders/lords.
SQ 23- Describe the enormous significance of the Elector of Brandenburg's asking MK, "Are you satisfied with me?"
ReplyDeleteThe Elector asking Kohlaas "Are you satisfied with me?" is quite significant, especially towards the ending of this story. The story is directed by Kohlaas' passion and desire for justice. For Kohlaas, the process and ends of justice was much more significant than getting his horses back to health. After destroying villages and people, he was able to get a fair trail for the way he was treated by the evil Junker. The Elector delievered his justice, by getting his horses fattened, the money he demanded for Herse's mother etc. So after all the violence and events, justice was delievered to Kohlaas, this also includes the justice in which the government will get for Kolhaas' disturbing the peace of the Empire. The political process of justice with in the government works, and thats how Kolhaas wanted it from the start.
Who is Johann Nagelschmidt and how does he affect the proceedings?
ReplyDeleteJohann Nagelschmidt was one of Michael Kohlhaas' recruits but was then dismissed after the proclamation of the Electoral amnesty. He basically resumed where Michael Kohlhaas left off, causing trouble and taking up fire and sword. But unlike Kohlhaas, Nagelschmidt lacked basis for his actions and spread false rumors for his lack of basis. These rumors shook up the proceedings, for those of the high court were second guessing the Michael Kohlhaas that they have all come to respect. But after ordering Kohlhaas to appear for questioning, and after interrogating him, their worries subsided. Kohlhass even wrote an open letter to Nagelschmidt about his false accusations, clearing things up for everyone.
Discussion Question 4: What is the moral of this story or does it have one? Are there lessons to be learned from individual action here? Did this individual’s actions lead to justice?
ReplyDeleteThere is definitely a moral to Michael Kohlhaas although the reader must continue reading until the last page to find it. Also, the what the moral actually is could potentially be disputed. An important scene when distinguishing the moral of the story takes place when the gypsy woman asks Kohlhaas whether he will just give the Governor of Saxony the papers in order to save his life, Kohlhaas replies with, "'Not for all the world,"' (207)however, to this she replies, "'not for all the world, horse-dealer Kohlhaas, but for this pretty fair-haired boy.'" In this respect perhaps the moral is to put family first. If he had put family first, then he would still be alive and perhaps his wife would be too. However, I feel that this scene serves a different purpose. This scene eliminates the question in the reader's minds that this burning/killing spree was some kind of vendetta or thirst for revenge. When at the end Kohlhaas eats the papers that the Governor of Saxony needed, he makes it clear that he was fighting for social justice and equality, not for himself. In the end, Kohlhaas puts political justice in front of his own needs and he is smiling right before his death. Although he kind of targeted one injustice (Governor of Saxony) against another (the Junker), he accomplished his goal. His sons were later knighted and Kleist makes it clear that Kohlhaas, though dead, had won when he said for the rest, readers can referrence history. He sees Kohlhaas as a kind of beginner's model for social justice.
22. (207) What course of action does MK embark on when he tells the gypsy woman, "Not for all the world, old lady...."
ReplyDeleteWhen the Gypsy says that Kohlhaas should consider exchanging the paper with the Elector of Saxony, "in exchange for life and freedom," Kohlhaas replies by saying, "Not for all the world, old lady". Kohlhaas doubts that his life will be granted to him, saying that, "'When a man has once broken his word to me,..I will have no more dealings with him". From this statement, we can see how Kohlhaas has come to terms with his fate and is willing to stand up for justice till his death. Kohlhaas also adds that, "when they were grown up the children themselves would praise his course of action". Kohlhaas believes that justice is worth dying for and his children will grow up, standing up for what is right.
It’s easy to see how Kohlhaas is David and Junker/corrupt system is Goliath because as the story progresses, Kohlhaas’ quest for justice becomes less about his own personal loss and about the defense of the little guy in the face of big powerful politicians. Kohlhass from the beginning was described as a usual law abiding citizen with a family and stable profits no one out of the ordinary that was picked on by more powerful men in the system. David as well and Kohlhaas were of course underestimated by his enemy in strength and determination and in the end the smallest was the strongest. Kohlhaas’ destructive mean of bringing down “Goliath” however, make his story unlike its biblical counterpart. David did not murder any other soldiers before striking down Goliath, Kohlhaas did. His extension of claiming justice from just the Junker to the greater part of Saxony now as he enemy creates this kind of madness unique to Kohlhaas’ character in which he idea of justice is now skewed for his benefit. In fact, David challenged Goliath to save his people from persistent threats of war to the Israelite army. Kohlhaas, however, was the persistent chaser after Junker-Goliath for the things he loss, not for the things he could save.
ReplyDelete(d.1)
ReplyDelete17. (164-71) How are the horses located and recovered? Under what circumstances?
ReplyDeleteSome men from Dresden that were in Wilsdruf reported that a groom arrived with two horses in wretched condition but couldn't go further and left them with a sheperd who said he'd feed them back to health. The shepherd sold them but they didn't know to who. Junker Wenzel von Tronka wrote to the court at Wilsdruf when he heard rumors of the horse being seen there and the man who purchased the horses from a shepherd in Wilsdruf was in the city market-place but he was a knacker. They went to see if they were Kohlhaas' horses. Chamberlain ordered the horses to be untethered but Himboldt resisted and the groom did not obey him and Himboldt threw him to the ground. The police came and took Himboldt away and helped Chamberlain, then said the knacker had to take responsibility.
Why Kleist didn't like Saxony:
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Encyclopedia Britannica, after resigning from his position as an army officer, Kleist, abandoning his studies, went to Paris then to Switzerland. He then went back to Paris, burned his manuscript and tried to sign up for the French army. He got expelled from there, traveled to East Prussia and applied for a civil-service post. He left for Dresden before training was over in resignation but was arrested by the French and imprisoned as a spy.
Kleist was "inspired by a threatened rising against Napoleon" and wrote Die Hermannsschalcht, a "political and patriotic tragedy." Also, in 1809, he tried to gather all of Germany to rise through a political periodical. "Michael Kohlhaas" and seven other novellas were collected in 1810-11.
In 1806, Napoleon conquered Saxony and made it a kingdom.
Brandenburg was ruled from 1701 by the German Hohenzollern dynasty up to 1918 when they fell, (becoming the Land (state)). Frederick William III (reigned 1797-1840) created a foreign policy of caution and neutrality with France and Napoleon I but went to war with them in 1806. The defeat of the Prussians was followed by a collapse of the state and then through a treaty, it was reduced to Brandenburg and other provinces.
Karl Stein, after the disaster of 1806, introduced his basic idea to evoke "positive consciousness of solidarity" alllowing citizens to take a more active part in public affairs. The emancipation of the serfs (1807),the measures for local self-government, and reshaping of central government followed.
I think the latter part of this entry pertain more to Kleist's dislike of Saxony.
(I hope I got all my facts straight)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSQ 24. (213) If Kohlhaas has been satisfied, why does he swallow the paper? Does he need more revenge?
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the story, Kohlhass gets his money and plump horses back, but still swallows the paper in the blue-hatted man’s locket. This piece of paper contained important questions that an official sought answers to and was going to find. He could have used this paper to bargain for his life so that he wouldn’t be executed, but instead decided to swallow it. I think this was just to make it even: Kohlhass’ life for the piece of paper of information. The reason I would have done it is because the judicial system didn’t get me my things back on time so I could enjoy them, so what’s the point? I think he did it for some type of miniscule revenge.
19. (186-88) There are three overlapping jurisdictions involved here. What are they and how do they interact?
ReplyDeleteSaxory- In Saxory a Junker took Michale Kohlhaas' horses and used them for work. In Dresden, the capital of Saxory, Kohlhaas finds out that there is no such need for paperwork to be able to cross boarders. Dresden is also the place where his trial took place
Brandenburg-The place where Michael Kohlhaas is from. The elector of Brandenburg tries to free Kohlhaas but ultimately fails.
Holy Roman Empire- Keeps in contact with the trial as he sends messages. Also sent attorney or Imperial Majesty's attorney. (not really sure if the attorney is under the HRE sorry if it is not but that is what i got out of the reading).
Study Question 23:
ReplyDeleteThe significance of the Elector of Brandenburg asking Kohlhaas if he was satisfied deals a lot with Michael Kohlhaas and his determination to always get justice. He felt like he had to do more than just be satisfied with himself and back to teh way things are. He had to go beyond than being satisfied to have justice again, especially with the fact that he wanted more than just his horses back to their health.
2. Kohlhaas responds to an inner sense of justice that leads him to transgress or defy the Law. Antigone responds to unwritten laws and ancient traditions that she traces to the gods. How does (or does) Kohlhaas’s gesture of defiance differ from that of Antigone?
ReplyDeleteThe fact that both Antigone and Kohlhaas defy the civil law of the land shows that their character and means of achieving justice are quite similar. Antigone wants to give a proper burial for her dead brother in order for his soul to rest in peace. Kohlhaas, on the other hand, seeks justice by causing much more chaos around him. Kohlhaas not only wants the Junker to be punished, but he wants him to realize the extent of care and concern Kohlhaas has for his horses. His wife’s death sparks the flame in Kohlhaas to approach unlawful means of acquiring justice. By rebelling against the law, both Antigone and Kohlhaas are offering their respect for their dead. Additionally, both Kohlhaas and Antigone involve the power of the Gods in their cause. Antigone reasons that the Gods have created unwritten laws that are supreme over any mundanely orders. In these unwritten laws, it is her duty as a sister to give a proper burial to her brother and no law on earth is supreme enough to override the demands of the Gods. Kohlhaas also claims that he is the Archangel Michael and has come to rid this world of the evil Junker, and portrays himself as the punisher who acts with “fire and sword.” Whether the two are lead to their cause by actually believing in their religious reasoning is debatable; both Antigone and Kohlhaas might use these means to illicit persuasive feeling within their audience and get them to support their cause.
Kohlhaas’s gesture of defiance differs from that of Antigone because Kohlhaas at first approaches the law and files lawsuits for his case, whereas Antigone is mainly concerned with opposing Creon’s demands and does not take the initiative to possible negotiate with him. Kohlhaas tries his luck with the law and is willing to risk his property for his justice, but once his wife dies fighting for his cause, he has no other option but to rebel. The approach of defying the law also differs between Antigone and Kohlhaas. Antigone’s “war” with the state was an individual’s war for the sake of family. Kolhaas’s issue can be linked with much more broader views as the peasant’s revolt because he was able to get an army of many men to turn against the upper class. Kolhaas’s war was widespread in the neighboring cities and states, whereas Antigone’s revolt was centered around the city of Thebes. Both Antigone and Kolhaas are similar because they fought against the law for the justice of their cause, but they also greatly differ in ideology as seen through their varying methods of achieving that justice.
I recommend everyone to read Priya's post here. The points about the two outlaws' use of religious rhetoric, and the difference in their initial approach are especially useful.
ReplyDeleteAnd props to Steve for trying to sort out that aristocratic tangle, and to Yen for the early 1800s info.