Heinrich von Kleist's Michael Kohlhaas

What is it that ties a person in to their society? His or her family? Friends? Networks of social contacts? Who regulates those interactions? Who says what is acceptable and what is not? Are there too many questions in this paragraph?

Law. That is what binds together citizens of thier lands. Citizens are supposed to be afforded the protection of the law, as well as surrender to it, when warrented. If citizens are no longer protected by the law from the harmful actions of their neighbors, how can the law ask them to submit themselves to the law?

Michael Kohlhaas was a good, proud man. When he was ripped off he did everything in his power to legally seek satisfaction. But because he was not held in as high esteem within the realm as the Junker von Tronka, his satisfaction was denied. He was not protected by the laws, indeed it was as though he was outside of the law's protection. An outlaw.

So if the state cannot protect him through the legal system, how can they expect to legally hold him accountable? Through their failure to seek justice on Kohlhaas' behalf, they forefeited the right to try him.

I belive von Kleist was trying to illustrate the dual obligation of the legal system. On one side, the legal system is a means to seek satisfaction for wrongs done to you, on the other side, it is a means for the state to seek justice from wrongs you have committed against the state.

Through Kohlhaas' "rebellion" he was just doing the only thing he could to get satisfaction from the Junker.




Kohlhaas ist ähnlich wie Robin Hood, da sie sowohl ein starker Sinn für Gerechtigkeit, und sie sind beide gut zu schüren Bauern zu helfen, sie zu suchen Gerechtigkeit:

Friedrich Schiller's Der Verbrecher aus verlorener Ehre

I believe that in this story, the author would like us to understand the difference between crime committed by bad people for bad purpose and crime committed by good people for good purpose.

The protagonist is a man who is ugly on the outside, yet basically good on the inside. His crime is that of killing wild animals to survive. He is caught and sent to prison. His incarceration sends him further to the dark side when eventually he sees the man who had him imprisoned hunting the same game. He then has what psychologists today might call a “moment of temporary insanity” and kills the bailiff, turning outlaw.

But his soul is too good to live in the company of such terrible men, so he tries to turn back to the good side, much like Darth Vader in “Return of the Jedi.”

I believe Friedrich Schiller was using this story to tell the world that not all criminals deserve such severe punishment. Some criminals are simply good people who break the rules in order to survive.

Furthermore, I believe that Schiller’s thinking in this matter is derived from the Kantian ethical system, where each and every life has value in and of itself. The power of the human spirit that is inside each of us gives us the power to change, to redeem ourselves from our past mistakes.

Some people would call it Classical-Romanticism in putting the individual first, but I feel this story resonates with the Kantian ethical system, as opposed to the Utilitarianism point of view, where the proper course of action is what is best for the majority of the people, leaving individualism out of the equation. Perhaps Schiller was trying to draw people’s attention to the individual in the story, rather than society as a whole.

Now, as promised, I give you: REDEMPTION!