What do you think?
Rate this book
Michael Kohlhaas
Based on historical events, this thrilling saga of violence and retribution bridges the gap between Medieval and modern literature, and speaks so profoundly to the contemporary spirit that it has been the basis of numerous plays, movies, and novels.
It has become, in fact, a classic tale: that of the honorable man forced to take the law into his own hands. In this incendiary prototype, a minor tax dispute intensifies explosively, until the eponymous hero finds the forces of an entire kingdom, and even the great Martin Luther, gathered against him. But soon even Luther comes to echo the growing army of peasants asking, "Isn’t Kohlhaas right?"
Widely acknowledged as one of the masterworks of German literature, Michael Kohlhaas is also one of the most stirring tales ever written of the quest for justice.
It has become, in fact, a classic tale: that of the honorable man forced to take the law into his own hands. In this incendiary prototype, a minor tax dispute intensifies explosively, until the eponymous hero finds the forces of an entire kingdom, and even the great Martin Luther, gathered against him. But soon even Luther comes to echo the growing army of peasants asking, "Isn’t Kohlhaas right?"
Widely acknowledged as one of the masterworks of German literature, Michael Kohlhaas is also one of the most stirring tales ever written of the quest for justice.
133 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1810
About the author
Heinrich von Kleist
770 books323 followersThe dramatist, writer, lyricist, and publicist Heinrich von Kleist was born in Frankfurt an der Oder in 1777. Upon his father's early death in 1788 when he was ten, he was sent to the house of the preacher S. Cartel and attended the French Gymnasium. In 1792, Kleist entered the guard regiment in Potsdam and took part in the Rhein campaign against France in 1796. Kleist voluntarily resigned from army service in 1799 and until 1800 studied philosophy, physics, mathematics, and political science at Viadrina University in Frankfurt an der Oder. He went to Berlin early in the year 1800 and penned his drama "Die Familie Ghonorez". Kleist, who tended to irrationalism and was often tormented by a longing for death, then lit out restlessly through Germany, France, and Switzerland.
After several physical and nervous breakdowns, in which he even burned the manuscript of one of his dramas, Heinrich von Kleist reentered the Prussian army in 1804, working in Berlin and Königsberg. There he wrote "Amphitryon" and "Penthesilea."
After being discharged in 1807, Kleist was apprehended on suspicion of being a spy. After this he went to Dresden, where he edited the art journal "Phoebus" with Adam Müller and completed the comedy "The Broken Pitcher" ("Der zerbrochene Krug") and the folk play "Katchen von Heilbronn" ("Das Käthchen von Heilbronn").
Back in Berlin, the one time Rousseau devotee had become a bitter opponent of Napoleon. In 1811, he finished "Prinz Friedrich von Homburg." Finding himself again in financial and personal difficulties, Heinrich von Kleist, together with his lover, the terminally ill Henriette Vogel, committed suicide near the Wannsee in Berlin in 1811.
[From http://www.heinrich-von-kleist.com/]
After several physical and nervous breakdowns, in which he even burned the manuscript of one of his dramas, Heinrich von Kleist reentered the Prussian army in 1804, working in Berlin and Königsberg. There he wrote "Amphitryon" and "Penthesilea."
After being discharged in 1807, Kleist was apprehended on suspicion of being a spy. After this he went to Dresden, where he edited the art journal "Phoebus" with Adam Müller and completed the comedy "The Broken Pitcher" ("Der zerbrochene Krug") and the folk play "Katchen von Heilbronn" ("Das Käthchen von Heilbronn").
Back in Berlin, the one time Rousseau devotee had become a bitter opponent of Napoleon. In 1811, he finished "Prinz Friedrich von Homburg." Finding himself again in financial and personal difficulties, Heinrich von Kleist, together with his lover, the terminally ill Henriette Vogel, committed suicide near the Wannsee in Berlin in 1811.
[From http://www.heinrich-von-kleist.com/]
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 444 reviews
May 15, 2021
It is not surprising Kafka loved this novella so much that it often brought him to tears, for here, a hundred years before Kafka, Kleist created a hero whose single-minded attempt to right one act of injustice leads him into a nebulous world of bureaucratic timidity, familial influence, and existential absurdity where he is transformed into a criminal, defined as a terrorist, and eventually deprived of everything in life except one final secret, one silence.
But the marvelous thing about Michael Kohlhaas—this absurdist narrative, this existentialist precursor—is that it is also an exciting. realistic narrative based on actual 16th century events, filled with concrete, colorful details and an instructive glimpse of 16th century politics.
The outline of the story is simple: horse-dealer Kohlhaas is compelled to stop at a tollgate where two of his horses are unjustly seized as collateral by the men of Junker Wenzel von Tronka. When Kohlhaas returns and finds his horses have been beaten and abused, he demands they be restored to their original condition and returned to him. The nobleman von Tronka refuses, and soon Kohlhaas is at war with the powers that be, not only in Saxony but in his native Brandenburg as well.
Although I like Michael Kohlhaas for the absurdity of its universe, I love it for the Romantic folly of its hero. He is a relentless man who requires one small thing, a thing which is owed him, and he is prepared to burn down a country to get what he is rightly his due. But my favorite detail of the novel is the mysterious aura surrounding the small paper Kohlhaas carries with him, the paper which makes his last triumphant gesture possible: is it the gift of a random fortune teller, or the gift of a loving ghost in disguise?
January 21, 2022
Michael Kohlhaas, Heinrich von Kleist
Michael Kohlhaas, the story of a man whose sense of justice, turns him to be a robber and a murderer, the story based on actual historic events, this thrilling saga of violence and retribution bridged the gap between medieval and modern literature, and speaks so profoundly to the contemporary spirit that it has been the basis of numerous plays, movies, and novels.
It has become, in fact, a classic tale: that of the honorable man forced to take the law into his own hands. In this incendiary prototype, a minor tax dispute intensifies explosively, until the eponymous hero finds the forces of an entire kingdom, and even the great Martin Luther, gathered against him. But soon even Luther comes to echo the growing army of peasants asking, Isn’t Kohlhaas right?
Widely acknowledged as one of the masterworks of German literature, Michael Kohlhaas is also one of the most stirring tales ever written of the quest for justice.
تاریخ نخستین خوانش روز بیستم ماه ژانویه سال2015میلادی
عنوان: میشائیل کلهاس و سه داستان دیگر؛ نویسنده: هاینریش فون کلایست؛ مترجم محمود حدادی؛ تهران، ماهی، سال1386؛ در182ص؛ شابک9789649971117؛ چاپ دوم سال1392؛ چاپ سوم سال1395؛ چاپ چهارم سال1396؛ موضوع داستانهای نویسندگان آلمان - سده19م
میشائیل کلهاس اسبفروش شرافتمندی بوده، که زندگی آرامی با خانواده ی خویش داشته، اما آن آرامش دیری نمیپاید، و ستم بزرگی به او میشود؛ او که مردی عدالتخواه بوده، درصدد گرفتن حق خویش برمیآید، اما در این راه ستمهای دیگری میبیند، و پی به فساد دستگاه قضا میبرد، و زندگیاش به کلی دگرگون میگردد، «کلهاس» شخصی راستین است، و براساس یک روایت تاریخی کهن، در سده ی شانزدهم میلادی زندگی میکرده، و این «هاینریش فون کلایست» بوده اند، که با روایت شگفتانگیز خویش، «کلهاس» را از دنیای واقعی، وارد دنیای ادبیات نیز کرده اند؛ در بین این چهار داستان کوتاه، داستان «میشائیل کلهاس» بلندترین آنهاست، که برای نخستین بار در سال1810میلادی منتشر شده بود؛ سه داستان دیگر «گندهپیر لوکارنو» دربارهی پیرزنی مفلوک، «زلزله در شیلی»؛ حکایت دو عاشق، و «مارکوئیز فون اُ...» قصه ی بیوه زنی رنج دیده، هستند، این آخرین داستان نخستین داستان «فون کلایست» نیز هست، «فون کلایست» آن داستان را در سن بیستوهشت سالگی خویش بنگاشته اند، و آفرینهای بسیاری دریافت کرده اند؛ نویسنده در این قصه ی کوتاه، داستان زنی به نام «مارکوئیز» را بازگشایی میکنند، «مارکوئیز» نمیداند کی و به دست چه کسی باردار شده است؛ داستان «میشائیل کلهاس» اثری مهم در تاریخ ادبیات جهان بوده، که نویسندگان بسیاری همچون «فرانتس کافکا» و «هرمان هسه»، آن را خوانده و ستودهاند، و «دکتروف» نویسنده ی «آمریکا» نیز؛ رمان نامدار خود «رگتایم» را، با اثر پذیری از همین داستان نگاشته و نام شخصیت اصلی داستان خویش را «کلهاس واکر» گذاشته اند
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 30/10/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
Michael Kohlhaas, the story of a man whose sense of justice, turns him to be a robber and a murderer, the story based on actual historic events, this thrilling saga of violence and retribution bridged the gap between medieval and modern literature, and speaks so profoundly to the contemporary spirit that it has been the basis of numerous plays, movies, and novels.
It has become, in fact, a classic tale: that of the honorable man forced to take the law into his own hands. In this incendiary prototype, a minor tax dispute intensifies explosively, until the eponymous hero finds the forces of an entire kingdom, and even the great Martin Luther, gathered against him. But soon even Luther comes to echo the growing army of peasants asking, Isn’t Kohlhaas right?
Widely acknowledged as one of the masterworks of German literature, Michael Kohlhaas is also one of the most stirring tales ever written of the quest for justice.
تاریخ نخستین خوانش روز بیستم ماه ژانویه سال2015میلادی
عنوان: میشائیل کلهاس و سه داستان دیگر؛ نویسنده: هاینریش فون کلایست؛ مترجم محمود حدادی؛ تهران، ماهی، سال1386؛ در182ص؛ شابک9789649971117؛ چاپ دوم سال1392؛ چاپ سوم سال1395؛ چاپ چهارم سال1396؛ موضوع داستانهای نویسندگان آلمان - سده19م
میشائیل کلهاس اسبفروش شرافتمندی بوده، که زندگی آرامی با خانواده ی خویش داشته، اما آن آرامش دیری نمیپاید، و ستم بزرگی به او میشود؛ او که مردی عدالتخواه بوده، درصدد گرفتن حق خویش برمیآید، اما در این راه ستمهای دیگری میبیند، و پی به فساد دستگاه قضا میبرد، و زندگیاش به کلی دگرگون میگردد، «کلهاس» شخصی راستین است، و براساس یک روایت تاریخی کهن، در سده ی شانزدهم میلادی زندگی میکرده، و این «هاینریش فون کلایست» بوده اند، که با روایت شگفتانگیز خویش، «کلهاس» را از دنیای واقعی، وارد دنیای ادبیات نیز کرده اند؛ در بین این چهار داستان کوتاه، داستان «میشائیل کلهاس» بلندترین آنهاست، که برای نخستین بار در سال1810میلادی منتشر شده بود؛ سه داستان دیگر «گندهپیر لوکارنو» دربارهی پیرزنی مفلوک، «زلزله در شیلی»؛ حکایت دو عاشق، و «مارکوئیز فون اُ...» قصه ی بیوه زنی رنج دیده، هستند، این آخرین داستان نخستین داستان «فون کلایست» نیز هست، «فون کلایست» آن داستان را در سن بیستوهشت سالگی خویش بنگاشته اند، و آفرینهای بسیاری دریافت کرده اند؛ نویسنده در این قصه ی کوتاه، داستان زنی به نام «مارکوئیز» را بازگشایی میکنند، «مارکوئیز» نمیداند کی و به دست چه کسی باردار شده است؛ داستان «میشائیل کلهاس» اثری مهم در تاریخ ادبیات جهان بوده، که نویسندگان بسیاری همچون «فرانتس کافکا» و «هرمان هسه»، آن را خوانده و ستودهاند، و «دکتروف» نویسنده ی «آمریکا» نیز؛ رمان نامدار خود «رگتایم» را، با اثر پذیری از همین داستان نگاشته و نام شخصیت اصلی داستان خویش را «کلهاس واکر» گذاشته اند
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 30/10/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
August 15, 2023
In this story, inspired by an old chronicle of the 16th century, Kohlhaas, a wealthy horse dealer, collides in a Germany fragmented between small states. At the same time, he went to a fair of Saxony in the company of three of his animals at a toll belonging to a mean and frivolous squire. The passage will prohibit until obtaining a pass. Kohlhaas leaves his animals as a pledge, and for their upkeep, one of his valets with a sum of money. Once in Dresden, he learns that this regulation is arbitrary and will go, a little later, on the lands of this toll to find his man and his goods. It also learns that his valet was beaten and hunted down and sees his sadly emaciated animals after being used for fieldwork. He will appeal to justice to establish a remedy as an honest and trustworthy man. Still, quickly influenced by the country gentleman's family, he will lose this in many useless Squibbles. Kohlhaas' life, animated by a powerful sense of equity, changed. He begins by selling some of his estates; his wife dies after being beaten while approaching the court to plead her husband's case. He then goes on, like an exterminating angel, sowing terror all over the country with an army of crunchiness he had raised. It will take Luther's intervention to end his abuses and reconsider his trial. Finally, after complex difficulties, he gets compensation for the injustice suffered by finding his horses in perfect condition. However, he will still have the severed head for the crimes and disorders committed. Kleist's writing is simple, alert, and intelligent. He knows how to immediately create muscular dramatic tension while leaving us a little puzzled: Kohlhaas became a rebel because of his sense of justice, natural health, moral and physical, in the face of a corrupt aristocracy and people, but where many would have given way, either by weakness or by reason, it trained in excess.
Read
May 17, 2018The story of a man whose sense of justice turns him into a robber and a murderer.
This story is reinterpreted in the novel Ragtime.
I bought this book the first on my long and very slow road to acquaintance with Kleist, in Kassel early in this century - a long time ago, virtually in the Bronze age as far as I can tell. A simple grey hardback with illustrations, it might have been the first book I bought in German to drag myself up to reasonable standard of literary . The effect of the story - and I avoided reading Kleist for many years in any language or none knowing that he eventually committed suicide, I have an uneasiness there in case the produce of the life will inevitably lead the reader to the same conclusion, my uneasiness I guess is simply that otherwise the work would have been long since banned from curriculums, however it does have a power. And that is the amazing thing in Kleist how in very short, curiously simple stories he builds up intense power like the waters trapped behind a dam. Sometimes I think of rereading it again and my hand shrinks back, my stomach objects, it is too much, too extreme in its utter hopelessness and defiance.
On a superficial level the story is much like a certain kind of Hollywood film in which violence is not an equaliser but the absolute determinant of supremacy, however much you've been screwed down, threatened or oppressed, certain films assert, if you resort to violence with sufficient intensity, right can triumph. Kleist inKohlhaas says 'get real', once you are on the outside, you remain on the outside, yes, you may get a taste of vengeance, but once you figuratively lose your head and start down that road, at the end of it you literally lose your head and not just you but everyone who rode out with you too.
It is an absolutely brutal story in it's view of power structures, those who have power can abuse it, those who don't have power get abused and are allowed to say 'please sir, can I have some more'. It's a story of absolutely brilliant touches none of which even I would want to spoil.
Sitting back it is also an absolutely strange story to emerge from someone with the social background of Kleist - the aristocrat in the Prussian army on active service already as a child, not perhaps the first person to suspect of being critical of the entire edifice of power and all forms of authority. This is a story to emerge from the era of the French revolution, now in modern times there is a standard, the Rights of Man, previously says Kleist there was only the personal will of the authorities and no abstract conception of a person's rights. The Ancien Regime, he says, can only ever be abusive.
This story is reinterpreted in the novel Ragtime.
I bought this book the first on my long and very slow road to acquaintance with Kleist, in Kassel early in this century - a long time ago, virtually in the Bronze age as far as I can tell. A simple grey hardback with illustrations, it might have been the first book I bought in German to drag myself up to reasonable standard of literary . The effect of the story - and I avoided reading Kleist for many years in any language or none knowing that he eventually committed suicide, I have an uneasiness there in case the produce of the life will inevitably lead the reader to the same conclusion, my uneasiness I guess is simply that otherwise the work would have been long since banned from curriculums, however it does have a power. And that is the amazing thing in Kleist how in very short, curiously simple stories he builds up intense power like the waters trapped behind a dam. Sometimes I think of rereading it again and my hand shrinks back, my stomach objects, it is too much, too extreme in its utter hopelessness and defiance.
On a superficial level the story is much like a certain kind of Hollywood film in which violence is not an equaliser but the absolute determinant of supremacy, however much you've been screwed down, threatened or oppressed, certain films assert, if you resort to violence with sufficient intensity, right can triumph. Kleist inKohlhaas says 'get real', once you are on the outside, you remain on the outside, yes, you may get a taste of vengeance, but once you figuratively lose your head and start down that road, at the end of it you literally lose your head and not just you but everyone who rode out with you too.
It is an absolutely brutal story in it's view of power structures, those who have power can abuse it, those who don't have power get abused and are allowed to say 'please sir, can I have some more'. It's a story of absolutely brilliant touches none of which even I would want to spoil.
Sitting back it is also an absolutely strange story to emerge from someone with the social background of Kleist - the aristocrat in the Prussian army on active service already as a child, not perhaps the first person to suspect of being critical of the entire edifice of power and all forms of authority. This is a story to emerge from the era of the French revolution, now in modern times there is a standard, the Rights of Man, previously says Kleist there was only the personal will of the authorities and no abstract conception of a person's rights. The Ancien Regime, he says, can only ever be abusive.
August 14, 2023
the repetition contained within this novella raises the perennial question regarding the strategy whereby the narrative structure is meant to mimic and/or reinforce the work's major theme; a kind of narrative onomatopoeia, if you will. one considers godard's slow-moving 15 minute tracking shot of traffic in weekend and wonders if his point (a cinematic representation of the repetition & monotony of a particular aspect of contemporary life) comes across or if just bores the living shit out of the uninitiated and those who do love it are only the filmgeeks who dig it as an artistic device void of any true political meaning... the repetition in michael kohlhaas, used as a means to convey the over-and-over-again folly and stupidity of mankind, is sure to turn off some folks, but i guess kleist'd prolly answer with a nice bumsen sie sie.
the novella concerns the titular farmer, in his attempt to transport a few of his horses, being stopped by a landowner who demands a tax. when kohlhaas can't pay up, the landowner houses said animals until kohlhaas retrieves the money. thing is: there never was a tax. and kohlhaas's horses end up getting ill. a vicious legal battle ensues and shit snowballs until kohlhaas turns all enemy of the state, raises an army, sacks a number of villages, and martin luther (yeah, the martin luther) intervenes to act as liaison between church and state and civilian. lotsa interesting points about man and his relation to the state and church, but the real genius here is kleist's ability to get inside a seemingly irrelevant argument and show how it can realistically lead to... anything. yeah, people really are that petty. kleist is a master at illustrating how human behavior, action, & word is so often wildly misinterpreted; and, plainly stated, how often people just get shit wrong. michael kohlhaas is a kind of kafka precursor and i'm sure 'ol franz slobbered all over its pages. as he should have.
philip roth is obsessed with this kinda stuff, too, but sees a silver lining in the whole mess; he sees, perhaps, the very meaning of life in misinterpretation... a somewhat comforting notion. roth on interactions with other people:
"You get them wrong before you meet them, while you're anticipating meeting them; you get them wrong while you're with them; and then you go home to tell somebody else about the meeting and you get them all wrong again. Since the same generally goes for them with you, the whole thing is really a dazzling illusion... The fact remains that getting people right is not what living is all about anyway. It's getting them wrong that is living, getting them wrong and wrong and wrong and then, on careful reconsideration, getting them wrong again. That's how we know we're alive: we're wrong. Maybe the best thing would be to forget being right or wrong about people and just go along for the ride. But if you can do that -- well, lucky you."
the novella concerns the titular farmer, in his attempt to transport a few of his horses, being stopped by a landowner who demands a tax. when kohlhaas can't pay up, the landowner houses said animals until kohlhaas retrieves the money. thing is: there never was a tax. and kohlhaas's horses end up getting ill. a vicious legal battle ensues and shit snowballs until kohlhaas turns all enemy of the state, raises an army, sacks a number of villages, and martin luther (yeah, the martin luther) intervenes to act as liaison between church and state and civilian. lotsa interesting points about man and his relation to the state and church, but the real genius here is kleist's ability to get inside a seemingly irrelevant argument and show how it can realistically lead to... anything. yeah, people really are that petty. kleist is a master at illustrating how human behavior, action, & word is so often wildly misinterpreted; and, plainly stated, how often people just get shit wrong. michael kohlhaas is a kind of kafka precursor and i'm sure 'ol franz slobbered all over its pages. as he should have.
philip roth is obsessed with this kinda stuff, too, but sees a silver lining in the whole mess; he sees, perhaps, the very meaning of life in misinterpretation... a somewhat comforting notion. roth on interactions with other people:
"You get them wrong before you meet them, while you're anticipating meeting them; you get them wrong while you're with them; and then you go home to tell somebody else about the meeting and you get them all wrong again. Since the same generally goes for them with you, the whole thing is really a dazzling illusion... The fact remains that getting people right is not what living is all about anyway. It's getting them wrong that is living, getting them wrong and wrong and wrong and then, on careful reconsideration, getting them wrong again. That's how we know we're alive: we're wrong. Maybe the best thing would be to forget being right or wrong about people and just go along for the ride. But if you can do that -- well, lucky you."
December 22, 2016
You better not mess with Michael Kohlhaas!
Kohlhaas was a model 16th century citizen. He was one of the most righteous people around. He was God-fearing, benevolent, just, and faithful. And then he became a raider and a murderer. And the reason for this was his righteousness.
That's pretty much the summary of the first paragraph in Kleist's novella. I pondered a while what else there is to say about this book that may want you to read it, because read it you must. In the end I think the above should be enough.
The actual case that started with two ill-kept horses, and a beaten-up servant, isn't really important. It's also not important, which means K. has applied to gain justice. The important thing, to me, is the question of what you would do after everything you can legally do has failed and justice still wasn't served? K.'s claims are justified. But the people who should rule the case are not interested, they are corrupt, and they have family-ties with the accused party. So there is no one left for K. to turn to and he has but two options left: 1) let the matter rest [and open the door to further acts of despotism] or 2) take the law in his own hands.
He chose option #2. He started a violent feud against the accused, Junker Wenzel von Tronka, and then later the state of Saxony. And he had every right to do so! — well, almost. Feuds were considered legitimate legal instruments in the Holy Roman Empire up until the year 1495 when the law about the Perpetual Public Peace was proclaimed and feuds were outlawed [although they continued well into the 16th century]. That was a pivotal moment in legal history. The law basically states: From now on we, the rulers, are the only ones in the country who are legally allowed to use violence. You, the ruled, must not use violence in any case, or else we use violence against you.
Since K.'s times lots and lots of laws were proclaimed, and as a believer in the legal system that I still am, I think most of these laws are good. Violence committed by ordinary people is still outlawed, and that's a good thing, of course, one of the best there is. The only exception is violence committed in self-defense [I'm talking about German law here]. But, I see more and more cases in Germany and other countries where the legal system doesn't seem to work very well anymore. It seems to me there are a growing number of laws that do not serve the people, at least not all of them equally. And there are more and more cases where justice – at least as far as I can see it – isn't served. The gap between being right and getting right is larger than ever. Sometimes the person who allegedly committed the crime is not even brought to trial [Yes, I'm talking about the Eric Garner case, which sadly isn't even a case].
When the separation of powers [which didn't exist in the 16th century] doesn't work anymore, when two or more powers begin to work hand in hand, I think it's high time to think how to proceed. I can perfectly understand the people who hold up banners like "No Justice, No Peace" in the streets of New York City after the Garner incident. Those people marched peacefully, and I totally agree, but did they succeed? Will they ever succeed? Or is the time nigh for another Michal Kohlhaas to try once more option #2?
To end on a happy note: Here's the original first paragraph of the above mentioned law of 1495 in its original form (15th century German). I've had a hard time deciphering it.
__________
Update 12-22-2016
I just watched the film Michael Kohlhaas – Age of Uprising (2013; directed by Arnaud des Pallières) and quite liked it. The Kohlhaas in the film, depicted by Danish actor Mads Mikkelsen, is not a man of many words and he rather let his actions speak for him.
The are some outstanding shots of the landscape, and the minimalist score is very effective (solo cello, drums, flute). The violence is tuned down to a bearable (and necessary) level and there is hardly any blood on the scene, but you will know what’s going on. It’s a good movie and I can recommend it, if you’re into historical drama. The film is in no way a substitute for the book, though. The main elements of the plot are there, but there’s also a lot that’s missing, especially the notorious “Zettel” (the slip of paper) which becomes so important and gives the ending of the book an additional meaning. Anyway, that’s a film even a non-cineaste, like me, can enjoy.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Kohlhaas was a model 16th century citizen. He was one of the most righteous people around. He was God-fearing, benevolent, just, and faithful. And then he became a raider and a murderer. And the reason for this was his righteousness.
That's pretty much the summary of the first paragraph in Kleist's novella. I pondered a while what else there is to say about this book that may want you to read it, because read it you must. In the end I think the above should be enough.
The actual case that started with two ill-kept horses, and a beaten-up servant, isn't really important. It's also not important, which means K. has applied to gain justice. The important thing, to me, is the question of what you would do after everything you can legally do has failed and justice still wasn't served? K.'s claims are justified. But the people who should rule the case are not interested, they are corrupt, and they have family-ties with the accused party. So there is no one left for K. to turn to and he has but two options left: 1) let the matter rest [and open the door to further acts of despotism] or 2) take the law in his own hands.
He chose option #2. He started a violent feud against the accused, Junker Wenzel von Tronka, and then later the state of Saxony. And he had every right to do so! — well, almost. Feuds were considered legitimate legal instruments in the Holy Roman Empire up until the year 1495 when the law about the Perpetual Public Peace was proclaimed and feuds were outlawed [although they continued well into the 16th century]. That was a pivotal moment in legal history. The law basically states: From now on we, the rulers, are the only ones in the country who are legally allowed to use violence. You, the ruled, must not use violence in any case, or else we use violence against you.
Since K.'s times lots and lots of laws were proclaimed, and as a believer in the legal system that I still am, I think most of these laws are good. Violence committed by ordinary people is still outlawed, and that's a good thing, of course, one of the best there is. The only exception is violence committed in self-defense [I'm talking about German law here]. But, I see more and more cases in Germany and other countries where the legal system doesn't seem to work very well anymore. It seems to me there are a growing number of laws that do not serve the people, at least not all of them equally. And there are more and more cases where justice – at least as far as I can see it – isn't served. The gap between being right and getting right is larger than ever. Sometimes the person who allegedly committed the crime is not even brought to trial [Yes, I'm talking about the Eric Garner case, which sadly isn't even a case].
When the separation of powers [which didn't exist in the 16th century] doesn't work anymore, when two or more powers begin to work hand in hand, I think it's high time to think how to proceed. I can perfectly understand the people who hold up banners like "No Justice, No Peace" in the streets of New York City after the Garner incident. Those people marched peacefully, and I totally agree, but did they succeed? Will they ever succeed? Or is the time nigh for another Michal Kohlhaas to try once more option #2?
To end on a happy note: Here's the original first paragraph of the above mentioned law of 1495 in its original form (15th century German). I've had a hard time deciphering it.
§ 1. Also das von Zeit diser Verkündung niemand, von was Wirden, Stats oder Wesens der sey, den andern bevechden, bekriegen, berauben, vahen, überziehen, belegern, auch dartzu durch sich selbs oder yemand anders von seinen wegen nicht dienen, noch auch ainich Schloß, Stet, Märckt, Bevestigung, Dörffer, Höff oder Weyler absteigen oder on des andern Willen mit gewaltiger Tat frevenlich einnemen oder gevarlich mit Brand oder in ander Weg dermassen beschedigen sol, auch niemands solichen Tätern Rat, Hilf oder in kain ander Weis kain Beystand oder Fürschub thun, auch sy wissentlich oder gevarlich nit herbergen, behawsen, essen oder drencken, enthalten oder gedulden, sonder wer zu dem andern zu sprechen vermaint, der sol sölichs suchen und tun an den Enden und Gerichten, da die Sachen hievor oder yetzo in der Ordnung des Camergerichts zu Außtrag vertädingt sein oder künftigklich werden oder ordenlich hin gehörn.
__________
Update 12-22-2016
I just watched the film Michael Kohlhaas – Age of Uprising (2013; directed by Arnaud des Pallières) and quite liked it. The Kohlhaas in the film, depicted by Danish actor Mads Mikkelsen, is not a man of many words and he rather let his actions speak for him.
The are some outstanding shots of the landscape, and the minimalist score is very effective (solo cello, drums, flute). The violence is tuned down to a bearable (and necessary) level and there is hardly any blood on the scene, but you will know what’s going on. It’s a good movie and I can recommend it, if you’re into historical drama. The film is in no way a substitute for the book, though. The main elements of the plot are there, but there’s also a lot that’s missing, especially the notorious “Zettel” (the slip of paper) which becomes so important and gives the ending of the book an additional meaning. Anyway, that’s a film even a non-cineaste, like me, can enjoy.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
April 27, 2024
L’angelo sterminatore
Koolhaas è la storia di un ossessione. Ossessione per l’affermazione di un diritto negato, per la ricerca di una riconciliazione tra il proprio sè e la società, per il raggiungimento di un ordine perfetto.
Von Kleist ha creato un personaggio che lascia un segno nella letteratura mondiale. Koolhaas, precursore di tante figure create poi da Bernhard, è ossessionato e tormentato come probabilmente lo era l’autore, morto per suicidio-omicidio assieme all’amica Henriette sulle rive del lago Wannsee.
Koolhaas, mercante di cavalli, oltraggiato dai soprusi dei potenti che si accaparrano e maltrattano due dei suoi cavalli, creerà una sua banda con cui metterà a ferro e fuoco i principati tedeschi e, vincendo, dal suo punto di vista, perderà tutto.
Tratto da una storia vera, ambientata nel XVI secolo, la novella di von Kleist è anche uno spaccato storico del regno tedesco diviso e governato dai principi elettori, agli albori della riforma luterana. E Lutero in persona è un personaggio del racconto.
Scritto con un ritmo serrato, si legge come un romanzo d’azione, con un pizzico di fantasy per quella zingara, che predice il futuro e che tanto assomiglia alla cara moglie di K..
Anselm Kiefer, Engelssturz, l'arcangelo Michele scaccia i diavoli ribelli
"Cinque giorni dopo aver sbaragliato queste due schiere, Kohlhaas era davanti a Lipsia, e appiccava il fuoco alla città da tre lati. Nel proclama che diffuse in quella occasione egli si definiva "luogotenente di Michele, l'arcangelo, venuto a punire con il ferro e con il fuoco, su tutti coloro che in quella contesa avrebbero preso le parti dello junker, la perfidia in cui il mondo intero era sprofondato". E dal castello di Lutzen, che aveva assalito di sorpresa e in cui si era insediato, esortava il popolo, per instaurare un ordine migliore delle cose, a unirsi a lui; e il proclama era sottoscritto, con una sorta di folle esaltazione: "Dato nella sede provvisoria del nostro governo universale, il castello di Lutzen"".
Koolhaas è la storia di un ossessione. Ossessione per l’affermazione di un diritto negato, per la ricerca di una riconciliazione tra il proprio sè e la società, per il raggiungimento di un ordine perfetto.
Von Kleist ha creato un personaggio che lascia un segno nella letteratura mondiale. Koolhaas, precursore di tante figure create poi da Bernhard, è ossessionato e tormentato come probabilmente lo era l’autore, morto per suicidio-omicidio assieme all’amica Henriette sulle rive del lago Wannsee.
Koolhaas, mercante di cavalli, oltraggiato dai soprusi dei potenti che si accaparrano e maltrattano due dei suoi cavalli, creerà una sua banda con cui metterà a ferro e fuoco i principati tedeschi e, vincendo, dal suo punto di vista, perderà tutto.
Tratto da una storia vera, ambientata nel XVI secolo, la novella di von Kleist è anche uno spaccato storico del regno tedesco diviso e governato dai principi elettori, agli albori della riforma luterana. E Lutero in persona è un personaggio del racconto.
Scritto con un ritmo serrato, si legge come un romanzo d’azione, con un pizzico di fantasy per quella zingara, che predice il futuro e che tanto assomiglia alla cara moglie di K..
Anselm Kiefer, Engelssturz, l'arcangelo Michele scaccia i diavoli ribelli
"Cinque giorni dopo aver sbaragliato queste due schiere, Kohlhaas era davanti a Lipsia, e appiccava il fuoco alla città da tre lati. Nel proclama che diffuse in quella occasione egli si definiva "luogotenente di Michele, l'arcangelo, venuto a punire con il ferro e con il fuoco, su tutti coloro che in quella contesa avrebbero preso le parti dello junker, la perfidia in cui il mondo intero era sprofondato". E dal castello di Lutzen, che aveva assalito di sorpresa e in cui si era insediato, esortava il popolo, per instaurare un ordine migliore delle cose, a unirsi a lui; e il proclama era sottoscritto, con una sorta di folle esaltazione: "Dato nella sede provvisoria del nostro governo universale, il castello di Lutzen"".
October 31, 2019
Ein rechtschaffener Mensch wird durch die Willkür der Obrigkeit um sein Eigentum gebracht und verliert im Fortgang bei seiner Suche nach Gerechtigkeit sowohl seine Frau, sein Hab und Gut und letztlich auch noch seine moralische Grundsätze als Protestant. Er verschafft sich seine Recht durch Selbstjustiz und wird zum Schrecken im Land, brandstiftet und mordet. Was soll man von so einem Mensch halten. Wahrlich kein Held nach unseren heutigen Maßstäben, gemessen an seinen brutalen Taten eher ein Terrorist als eine Lichtgestalt der Arbeiterklasse.
Und trotzdem wurde dieser Mensch, Michael Kohlhaas, vor allem in den letzten 100 Jahren verehrt und von verschiedenen politischen Gruppierungen als Sinnbild hoch gehalten, von den Rechten wie den Linken. Für mich ist der Pferdehändler aus dem Brandenburgischen gewiss kein Vorbild, aber seine Geschichte, die ein reales Vorbild aus dem 16. Jahrhundert, ist aktueller denn je, gerade wenn man sieht, wie heutzutage wieder Menschen zur Selbstjustiz andere Menschen durch Straßen hetzen und die herrschende Ordnung unseres Staates ablehnen. Insofern ist es gut, dass Michael Kohlhaas in den Schulen noch gelesen wird. An mir ging er leider während der Schulzeit vorbei, wobei ich ihn vielleicht auch wegen der mittelalterlichen Sprache Kleists verflucht hätte. Heute betrachte ich das Buch mit anderen Augen und finde es vor allem interessant, dass Kleist die Form einer Novelle gewählt hat, denn das Stück hätten andere Autoren zu Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts noch in Dramen gepackt. Unweigerlich drängt sich da die Parallele zu Karl Moor in den Räubern auf. Doch Moor schwankt in seinen Ansichten, während Kohlhaas seine Taten nicht bereut, aber sein Ende auf dem Schafott aber auch als gerecht in tapferer und stolzer Form hinnimmt. Ich hätte gerne mehr über Kohlhaasens Gedankenwelt erfahren, aber Kleist schreibt seine Novelle sehr nüchtern, fast schon wie einen Aufsatz in einer juristischen Fachzeitung. Fall, Anspruchsgrundlage, Gesetz, Auslegung, Lösung. Und natürliche kann man unser Rechtsempfinden nicht mit dem aus den Zeiten Martin Luthers vergleichen. Luther muss dann sogar auch herhalten als moralische Instanz, der erst Kohlhaas verteufelt und sich dann doch für ihn beim Kurfürsten einsetzt. Und das alles wegen zweier Pferde. Verrückt. Im zweiten Teil war es einfach etwas zu viel von wegen juristischer Winkelzüge und Vetternwirtschaften. Und das Auftauchen einer hellsichtigen Zigeunerin und ihrer Prophezeiung auf einem Zettel notiert, hätte ich als Abschlusspointe auch nicht gebraucht. Auf jeden Fall ein Klassiker, der zum Nachdenken und weiteren Recherchieren anregt.
Und trotzdem wurde dieser Mensch, Michael Kohlhaas, vor allem in den letzten 100 Jahren verehrt und von verschiedenen politischen Gruppierungen als Sinnbild hoch gehalten, von den Rechten wie den Linken. Für mich ist der Pferdehändler aus dem Brandenburgischen gewiss kein Vorbild, aber seine Geschichte, die ein reales Vorbild aus dem 16. Jahrhundert, ist aktueller denn je, gerade wenn man sieht, wie heutzutage wieder Menschen zur Selbstjustiz andere Menschen durch Straßen hetzen und die herrschende Ordnung unseres Staates ablehnen. Insofern ist es gut, dass Michael Kohlhaas in den Schulen noch gelesen wird. An mir ging er leider während der Schulzeit vorbei, wobei ich ihn vielleicht auch wegen der mittelalterlichen Sprache Kleists verflucht hätte. Heute betrachte ich das Buch mit anderen Augen und finde es vor allem interessant, dass Kleist die Form einer Novelle gewählt hat, denn das Stück hätten andere Autoren zu Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts noch in Dramen gepackt. Unweigerlich drängt sich da die Parallele zu Karl Moor in den Räubern auf. Doch Moor schwankt in seinen Ansichten, während Kohlhaas seine Taten nicht bereut, aber sein Ende auf dem Schafott aber auch als gerecht in tapferer und stolzer Form hinnimmt. Ich hätte gerne mehr über Kohlhaasens Gedankenwelt erfahren, aber Kleist schreibt seine Novelle sehr nüchtern, fast schon wie einen Aufsatz in einer juristischen Fachzeitung. Fall, Anspruchsgrundlage, Gesetz, Auslegung, Lösung. Und natürliche kann man unser Rechtsempfinden nicht mit dem aus den Zeiten Martin Luthers vergleichen. Luther muss dann sogar auch herhalten als moralische Instanz, der erst Kohlhaas verteufelt und sich dann doch für ihn beim Kurfürsten einsetzt. Und das alles wegen zweier Pferde. Verrückt. Im zweiten Teil war es einfach etwas zu viel von wegen juristischer Winkelzüge und Vetternwirtschaften. Und das Auftauchen einer hellsichtigen Zigeunerin und ihrer Prophezeiung auf einem Zettel notiert, hätte ich als Abschlusspointe auch nicht gebraucht. Auf jeden Fall ein Klassiker, der zum Nachdenken und weiteren Recherchieren anregt.
August 1, 2022
I just re-read this for the first time in ten years or so and it was great. I laughed aloud at the absurdity of it, and yeah, I thought of Kafka more than once. Kleist's grasp of storytelling is phenomenal here - it all happens so quickly, and because the thing goes for 100 pages or so we're soon surrounded by a labyrinth of no less complexity (probably greater complexity) than the one faced by K. in The Castle. I mean, this is off the scale. And it's thrilling, to see the contortions Kleist can put his characters through with so few words.
Kleist can do action - can do it as well as Hammett - and he can do intricacies, a whole tangle of ridiculous, confounding, infuriating intricacies the like of which Kafka wrestled with so often. The Wiki entry says Kafka devoted one of only two public appearances in his life to reading passages from Michael Kohlhaas. Robert Walser's best story, 'Kleist in Thun', made clear his affection for this man. It's hardly necessary to say it, but for 1811 this is incredible stuff, and for all time it's pretty great. At a time like this, when myriad distractions stop me reading further than a few pages into so many books, to find something like this that grabs me so strongly, that's thrilling and perplexing and thought-provoking all at once, well, it's a blessed relief. Don't ask me what the ending is about though. This one's complete on every page.
(Oh yeah, and forget the ugly Melville House edition; get Penguin's The Marquise of O- and Other Stories.)
As the third night was falling he assaulted the castle with this handful of men, riding down the toll-keeper and the guard who were standing in conversation in the gateway. They set fire to every outhouse in the curtilage, and as these burst into flames Kohlhaas rushed into the castle to find the Junker, while Herse dashed up the spiral staircase into the warden's tower and fell with cut and thrust upon him and the steward, who were sitting half undressed playing cards together. It was as if the avenging angel of heaven had descended on the place. The Junker, amid much laughter, was in the act of reading aloud to a gathering of young friends the edict issued to him by the horse-dealer: but no sooner had he heard the latter's voice in the courtyard than, turning white as a sheet, he cried out to the company: 'Brother's, save yourselves!' and vanished. Kohlhaas entered the hall, seized Junker Hans von Tronker, as he came towards him, by the jerkin and hurled him into a corner, dashing out his brains against the stones.
Kleist can do action - can do it as well as Hammett - and he can do intricacies, a whole tangle of ridiculous, confounding, infuriating intricacies the like of which Kafka wrestled with so often. The Wiki entry says Kafka devoted one of only two public appearances in his life to reading passages from Michael Kohlhaas. Robert Walser's best story, 'Kleist in Thun', made clear his affection for this man. It's hardly necessary to say it, but for 1811 this is incredible stuff, and for all time it's pretty great. At a time like this, when myriad distractions stop me reading further than a few pages into so many books, to find something like this that grabs me so strongly, that's thrilling and perplexing and thought-provoking all at once, well, it's a blessed relief. Don't ask me what the ending is about though. This one's complete on every page.
(Oh yeah, and forget the ugly Melville House edition; get Penguin's The Marquise of O- and Other Stories.)
June 11, 2023
Heinrich Von Kleist [1777-1811], scrisse questo romanzo, sicuramente il più bello e il più intenso della sua breve vita, tra il 1808 e il 1810, traendo spunto da una antica cronaca del XVI secolo che egli rielaborò raccontando le vicende che riguardano Michael Kohlhaas, un mercante di cavalli considerato “il modello di un buon cittadino”, affettuoso marito e padre che, fatto segno di trattamento iniquo da parte di uno junker locale con parentele altolocate che lo aveva vessato e dileggiato, facendosi scudo della sua autorità, pretende giustizia e ammenda del torto subito rivolgendosi nei modi dovuti all’autorità suprema rappresentata dal Principe Elettore.
Kohlhaas è probo e saggio ma in lui vive l’anima di un uomo che come tale vuol essere trattato e rispettato e questa sua sete di giustizia e di soddisfazione per l’ingiuria subita, si scontrerà contro il muro di gomma dell’omertà e della prevaricazione dei nobili preposti alla giustizia del paese, e la delusione conseguente lo porterà a una guerra solitaria contro tutto e contro tutti, deciso ad ogni costo di non perdere la sua dignità e la libertà della sua anima di uomo indipendente e sciente.
Potente romanzo sul tema della libertà individuale, del rispetto di sé, della imperfetta giustizia degli uomini e delle contraddizioni del potere, questo romanzo, dopo averlo letto tutto d’un fiato, mi ha lasciato un senso di sfiducia e pessimismo.
Kohlhaas è probo e saggio ma in lui vive l’anima di un uomo che come tale vuol essere trattato e rispettato e questa sua sete di giustizia e di soddisfazione per l’ingiuria subita, si scontrerà contro il muro di gomma dell’omertà e della prevaricazione dei nobili preposti alla giustizia del paese, e la delusione conseguente lo porterà a una guerra solitaria contro tutto e contro tutti, deciso ad ogni costo di non perdere la sua dignità e la libertà della sua anima di uomo indipendente e sciente.
Potente romanzo sul tema della libertà individuale, del rispetto di sé, della imperfetta giustizia degli uomini e delle contraddizioni del potere, questo romanzo, dopo averlo letto tutto d’un fiato, mi ha lasciato un senso di sfiducia e pessimismo.
February 1, 2019
Mein Anstoß, Kleists Drama als Erwachsene erstmals zu lesen, kam übrigens von Marc-Uwe Kling aus seinem Roman Qualityland, der seinen Protagonisten Peter Arbeitsloser mit Michael Kohlhaas verglich, und ich glaube, mein Lesefreund Manuel tat dies auch gleich zu Beginn meiner Statusmeldungen, obwohl er Qualityland noch nicht gelesen hatte. Hier musste ich erstmals feststellen, dass ich dringend und schleunigst eine echte Bildungslücke zu stopfen hatte. Als Österreicherin englische Literatur nicht zu lesen (nicht mal Shakespeare), halte ich nicht für eine Bildungslücke, wenn mir aber im Deutschsprachigen etwas fehlt, das auch noch in der heutigen Zeit oftmals zitiert wird, muss ich so etwas sofort reparieren...
Puh die Sprache ist wirklich extrem mühsam: Eine Novelle geschrieben um 1800 mit der Sprache des 16. Jahrhunderts. Bei der wenig adäquaten Sprache rede ich übrigens nicht von den verschachtelten Bandwurmsätzen, die sich oft sogar über die ganze Seite des Reclamheftes ziehen - im Gegenteil, so etwas liebe ich sogar und nehme das ganze immer als sportliche Herausforderung an. Ich spreche von den unzähligen mittelalterlichen Vokabeln dieses Justizdramas, die einfach so fern von unserer heutigen Sprache sind, dass sie wie chinesisch anmuten. Auch aus dem Kontext heraus sind sie schwierig zu erraten, da sie des öfteren einen juristischen Hintergrund haben. Ehrlich gesagt, bei einem jiddischen Buch verstehe ich mehr als doppelt so viel. Wenn ich die Sprache nicht gut genug kann, ist mir immer der Lesefluss vergällt, weil ich dauernd soviel nachschlagen muss, das ist auch der Grund, warum ich nicht gerne fremdsprachige Literatur (auch keine englische lese). Wenn so etwas dann auch noch auf ein deutschsprachiges Werk zutrifft, ist es doppelt so unangenehm.
Kein Wunder, warum so viele Schüler es hassen, diese Pflichtlektüre zu absolvieren, denn kein Mensch kann heutzutage diese Sprache. Mir ist die Novelle ja als Liebling des Deutschlehrers (😂 das war ich wirklich - habe ihn erst vor 2 Jahren anläßlich meines 30jährigen Maturajubiläums getroffen und er schwärmt immer noch von mir als Schülerin) erspart geblieben, denn mein Deutschlehrer war stets zufrieden mit der Auswahl meiner Wahl-Bücher zu den Buchbesprechungen und drückte mir somit nie eine Zwangslektüre aufs Auge, aber ich kann mich vage erinnern, irgendwen in der Klasse hat es mit dem Kleist erwischt.
Nun aber zum Inhalt des Werks, der im Gegensatz zur Spache wirklich außergewöhnlich großartig ist und auch in heutigen Zeiten Jahrhunderte später derart modern anmutet, dass es eine Freude ist. Gerade in der heutigen Zeit als in Österreich und in Ungarn der Rechtsstaat gegenwärtig abmontiert wird, ist das Thema aktueller denn je. (Siehe Staatsanwaltliche Untersuchungen gegen Innenminister Kickl FPÖ, die auf Weisung eingestellt werden, oder Politiker, die im Parlarment brüllen "Niemals haben wir uns damit abzufinden, dass Gesetze uns in unserem Handeln behindern" Dagmar Belakovitsch FPÖ)
Wenn durch Korruption, Unterschlagung von Dokumenten, Freunderlwirtschaft und Rechtsbrüche der Rechtsstaat ausgehobelt wird, darf man sich nicht wundern, dass irgendwann ein Untertan durchdreht, sich dies alles nicht mehr gefallen lässt und zur Selbstjustiz greift.
So passiert es in einer mittelalterlichen Gesellschaft. Der Pferdehändler Michael Kohlhaas hat Recht in seiner relativ geringfügigen juristischen Angelegenheit gegen den Junker von Troncka, aber da die Verwandten dieses Nichtsnutzes überall an den Schalthebeln der Justiz und der Verwaltung sitzen und sich nicht genieren, diese Ämter auch zu Gunsten des entfernten Verwandten zu missbrauchen, hat Kohlhaas keine Chance. Dabei geht es ursprünglich nur um zwei Pferde, die sich der Junker unerlaubt einverleibt hat. Der Pferdehändler besteht auf seinem Recht, wird zwar irgendwie als starrsinnig und spießig dargestellt, aber wenn man sich die Zeit ansieht, dann waren damals zwei Pferde auch grad keine Petitesse im Vermögen eines Bürgers. Und wenn jemand Recht hat, darf er auch auf diesem Rechtsweg bestehen, die niedrigen Adeligen sind der Gerichtsbarkeit genauso unterworfen, wie alle anderen Bürger. Als die Frau von Kohlhaas so nebenbei lapidar bei der Einreichung eines Bittgesuchs getötet wird und sein Diener zusammengeschlagen, dreht Kohlhaas verständlicherweise durch und greift zur Selbstjustiz, die auch noch recht erfolgreich ein Heer von gewaltbereiten Anhängern findet, denn es ist ziemlich viel faul im Staate Sachsen, in dem die niederen Adeligen meinen, sie könnten sich über das Gesetz stellen und mit den Bürgern machen, was sie wollen.
Von Martin Luther persönlich überredet und durch eine Amnestie vom Kurfürsten pardonniert, legt er die Waffen nieder und bestreitet seinen Rechtsweg erneut. Durch Intrigen der Verwandten von Troncka werden aber alle Abmachungen seitens der Adeligen und der Gesetzgeber durch juristische Finten, Dokumentenunterschlagungen, Fristenverkürzungen, Korruption etc. gebrochen. Mittlerweile sind nicht nur die Tronckas involviert, das juristische Tohuwabohu wird auch noch durch unterschiedliche Zuständigkeiten der Kurfürstentümer Brandenburg und Sachsen verschlimmert - bis zum Kaiser in Wien geht die Angelegenheit, die natürlich von den Adeligen falsch dargestellt wird und ein Todesurteil für Kohlhaas nach sich zieht.
Am Ende bekommt er groteskesterweise in der Ausgangs-Petitesse Recht - nämlich seine zwei Pferde werden ihm retourniert - er selbst wird jedoch wegen Selbstjustiz zum Tode verurteilt. Der Staatenbund übernimmt keine Verantwortung für die Korruption, die das Leben von Kohlhaas Frau gekostet hat. Ein großartiges, nicht gut endendes Justizdrama, das auch 2019 spielen könnte.
Fazit: Inhalt topmodern - Sprache einfach nicht mehr zeitgemäß und richtig mühsam deshalb 3,5 Sterne. Da ich persönlich immer Inhalt vor der Präsentation bewerte, selbstverständlich auf 4 Sterne aufgerundet.
Puh die Sprache ist wirklich extrem mühsam: Eine Novelle geschrieben um 1800 mit der Sprache des 16. Jahrhunderts. Bei der wenig adäquaten Sprache rede ich übrigens nicht von den verschachtelten Bandwurmsätzen, die sich oft sogar über die ganze Seite des Reclamheftes ziehen - im Gegenteil, so etwas liebe ich sogar und nehme das ganze immer als sportliche Herausforderung an. Ich spreche von den unzähligen mittelalterlichen Vokabeln dieses Justizdramas, die einfach so fern von unserer heutigen Sprache sind, dass sie wie chinesisch anmuten. Auch aus dem Kontext heraus sind sie schwierig zu erraten, da sie des öfteren einen juristischen Hintergrund haben. Ehrlich gesagt, bei einem jiddischen Buch verstehe ich mehr als doppelt so viel. Wenn ich die Sprache nicht gut genug kann, ist mir immer der Lesefluss vergällt, weil ich dauernd soviel nachschlagen muss, das ist auch der Grund, warum ich nicht gerne fremdsprachige Literatur (auch keine englische lese). Wenn so etwas dann auch noch auf ein deutschsprachiges Werk zutrifft, ist es doppelt so unangenehm.
Kein Wunder, warum so viele Schüler es hassen, diese Pflichtlektüre zu absolvieren, denn kein Mensch kann heutzutage diese Sprache. Mir ist die Novelle ja als Liebling des Deutschlehrers (😂 das war ich wirklich - habe ihn erst vor 2 Jahren anläßlich meines 30jährigen Maturajubiläums getroffen und er schwärmt immer noch von mir als Schülerin) erspart geblieben, denn mein Deutschlehrer war stets zufrieden mit der Auswahl meiner Wahl-Bücher zu den Buchbesprechungen und drückte mir somit nie eine Zwangslektüre aufs Auge, aber ich kann mich vage erinnern, irgendwen in der Klasse hat es mit dem Kleist erwischt.
Nun aber zum Inhalt des Werks, der im Gegensatz zur Spache wirklich außergewöhnlich großartig ist und auch in heutigen Zeiten Jahrhunderte später derart modern anmutet, dass es eine Freude ist. Gerade in der heutigen Zeit als in Österreich und in Ungarn der Rechtsstaat gegenwärtig abmontiert wird, ist das Thema aktueller denn je. (Siehe Staatsanwaltliche Untersuchungen gegen Innenminister Kickl FPÖ, die auf Weisung eingestellt werden, oder Politiker, die im Parlarment brüllen "Niemals haben wir uns damit abzufinden, dass Gesetze uns in unserem Handeln behindern" Dagmar Belakovitsch FPÖ)
Wenn durch Korruption, Unterschlagung von Dokumenten, Freunderlwirtschaft und Rechtsbrüche der Rechtsstaat ausgehobelt wird, darf man sich nicht wundern, dass irgendwann ein Untertan durchdreht, sich dies alles nicht mehr gefallen lässt und zur Selbstjustiz greift.
So passiert es in einer mittelalterlichen Gesellschaft. Der Pferdehändler Michael Kohlhaas hat Recht in seiner relativ geringfügigen juristischen Angelegenheit gegen den Junker von Troncka, aber da die Verwandten dieses Nichtsnutzes überall an den Schalthebeln der Justiz und der Verwaltung sitzen und sich nicht genieren, diese Ämter auch zu Gunsten des entfernten Verwandten zu missbrauchen, hat Kohlhaas keine Chance. Dabei geht es ursprünglich nur um zwei Pferde, die sich der Junker unerlaubt einverleibt hat. Der Pferdehändler besteht auf seinem Recht, wird zwar irgendwie als starrsinnig und spießig dargestellt, aber wenn man sich die Zeit ansieht, dann waren damals zwei Pferde auch grad keine Petitesse im Vermögen eines Bürgers. Und wenn jemand Recht hat, darf er auch auf diesem Rechtsweg bestehen, die niedrigen Adeligen sind der Gerichtsbarkeit genauso unterworfen, wie alle anderen Bürger. Als die Frau von Kohlhaas so nebenbei lapidar bei der Einreichung eines Bittgesuchs getötet wird und sein Diener zusammengeschlagen, dreht Kohlhaas verständlicherweise durch und greift zur Selbstjustiz, die auch noch recht erfolgreich ein Heer von gewaltbereiten Anhängern findet, denn es ist ziemlich viel faul im Staate Sachsen, in dem die niederen Adeligen meinen, sie könnten sich über das Gesetz stellen und mit den Bürgern machen, was sie wollen.
Von Martin Luther persönlich überredet und durch eine Amnestie vom Kurfürsten pardonniert, legt er die Waffen nieder und bestreitet seinen Rechtsweg erneut. Durch Intrigen der Verwandten von Troncka werden aber alle Abmachungen seitens der Adeligen und der Gesetzgeber durch juristische Finten, Dokumentenunterschlagungen, Fristenverkürzungen, Korruption etc. gebrochen. Mittlerweile sind nicht nur die Tronckas involviert, das juristische Tohuwabohu wird auch noch durch unterschiedliche Zuständigkeiten der Kurfürstentümer Brandenburg und Sachsen verschlimmert - bis zum Kaiser in Wien geht die Angelegenheit, die natürlich von den Adeligen falsch dargestellt wird und ein Todesurteil für Kohlhaas nach sich zieht.
Am Ende bekommt er groteskesterweise in der Ausgangs-Petitesse Recht - nämlich seine zwei Pferde werden ihm retourniert - er selbst wird jedoch wegen Selbstjustiz zum Tode verurteilt. Der Staatenbund übernimmt keine Verantwortung für die Korruption, die das Leben von Kohlhaas Frau gekostet hat. Ein großartiges, nicht gut endendes Justizdrama, das auch 2019 spielen könnte.
Fazit: Inhalt topmodern - Sprache einfach nicht mehr zeitgemäß und richtig mühsam deshalb 3,5 Sterne. Da ich persönlich immer Inhalt vor der Präsentation bewerte, selbstverständlich auf 4 Sterne aufgerundet.
June 3, 2018
Neden bu kitabı okudum; takıntı olur bende, bir yazara başladığım zaman, eğer beğendiysem, tüm kitaplarını okuma isteği gelir içime. Ama bu durum beni diğer okumalardan, hatta hayatın başka renklerinden soyutlar, varsa yoksa o yazar, psikopat gibi başka bir şey düşünemem, o yazarla bütünleşirim, ruh ikizi olurum. O anlarda sanki ondan büyük yazar yoktur gözümde. İşte arka arkaya Hermann Hesse’yi bu anlattığım şekilde okurken, bu bahsettiğim batakvari durumdan kurtulmak için Heinrich von Kleist’a sarıldım. HH’den tam yüz yıl önce doğmuş ve birçok Alman yazarı etkilemiş Kleist. Bu da en önemli novellalarından biri. Öfkeyle kalkan zararla oturur misali; sütten çıkmış ak kaşık gibi bir at tacirinin etap etap hakkını araması, ararken ortalığı kırıp dökmesi, yakıp yıkması, elinden geleni ardına koymaması, iç içe geçmiş uzuuuuun cümlelerle anlatılmış. Biraz yordu beni şahsen.
December 16, 2023
Der Kaufmann Michael Kohlhaas erleidet Unrecht. Er klagt daraufhin um Schadensersatz. Durch das Zusammenhalten des Adels und der Öffentlichen Verwaltung gelingt dies Kohlhaas aber nicht. Nach dem Tod seiner Frau schreitet er zur Selbstjustiz, bekommt zeitweilig Amnestie und er kann seine Forderung nochmals geltend machen. Auch hier wird er wieder betrogen und dann aufgrund seiner Straftaten verurteilt. Kurz vor dem Tod bekommt er seinen Schaden ersetzt, erhält auch noch Genugtuung aufgrund des Zettels einer Zigeunerin und akzeptiert seinen Tod. Großartige Geschichte!
May 29, 2024
Inspired on 16th century chronicle of “broken on the wheel” merchant Hans Kohlhase, Heinrich von Kleist’s raging cautionary tale of revenge follows respected Brandenburg horse-dealer Michael Kohlhaas unavoidable confrontation with Wenzel von Tronka, a despot in charge of a recently installed toll-bar in the road.
The Junker asks of arbitrary paperwork from the merchant and takes his better horses when is unable to provide these. Due to Kohlhaas's chivalrous nature, is until later he realizes was insulted by the nobleman and demands for retaliation, inadvertently starting a war with the State.
Here is worth noting, Heinrich von Kleist’s fictional Kohlhase is named Michael instead of Hans not casually as may be inspired on Saint Michael the Archangel, known in many religions as an enforcer of Divine judgment. Michael Kohlhaas crusade against Wenzel von Tronka, however, is far from holy and tragically transforms our protagonist into a tyrant.
Heinrich von Kleist died aged 34 following a suicide pact done with his lover Henriette Vogel, aged 31, who was suffering from cancer. Both are buried in Bismarckstraße, Berlin.
The Junker asks of arbitrary paperwork from the merchant and takes his better horses when is unable to provide these. Due to Kohlhaas's chivalrous nature, is until later he realizes was insulted by the nobleman and demands for retaliation, inadvertently starting a war with the State.
Here is worth noting, Heinrich von Kleist’s fictional Kohlhase is named Michael instead of Hans not casually as may be inspired on Saint Michael the Archangel, known in many religions as an enforcer of Divine judgment. Michael Kohlhaas crusade against Wenzel von Tronka, however, is far from holy and tragically transforms our protagonist into a tyrant.
Heinrich von Kleist died aged 34 following a suicide pact done with his lover Henriette Vogel, aged 31, who was suffering from cancer. Both are buried in Bismarckstraße, Berlin.
June 17, 2018
In 2013 I saw the film adaptation Michael Kohlhaas at the French Film Festival in Hong Kong and was very impressed with the powerful theme of one man’s obsessive quest for justice and the intensely haunting cinematography and acoustics.
Recently I saw a GR friend’s review of the novella and was lured to read it. Styled in a chronicle format, the novella is written with impassive detachment, which actually adds to the poignancy of the story that is based on a true event in 16th century Germany (the real person was named Hans Kohlhaas).
Michael Kohlhaas is a horse dealer leading a peaceful life on the border between Saxony and Brandenburg. One day when he takes his horses to a fair as usual, passing through territories that belong to a nobleman von Tronka, he is demanded for the first time to pay tolls and to show his pass. When he fails to produce a pass, his two black horses are forcibly detained as collateral. He leaves his servant behind to tend to the horses while he returns home to see about the issuance of a pass. In his absence, the two horses are made to work the fields and reduced to pitiable state, and his servant savagely beaten up. He tries to seek redress in a Saxony court but his charge is dismissed. His wife decides to help him take the petition to the ruler of Saxony, but is brutally wounded by the ruler’s guards and dies a little later.
Blinding rage spurs Kohlhaas to take revenge against von Tronka, which act balloons into insurgence against the state. The aristocrats decide that Kohlhaas must be punished for his outrageous actions, despite the attempt by Martin Luther and the ruler of Brandenburg to save him.
The climax comes at the very end, which involves a piece of secret paper that Kohlhaas holds, that concerns the fate of the ruler of Saxony.
The novella begs the question: what do you do when you find that the written law doesn't protect your rights and interests?
I found this novella to be a compelling read and am giving it 4 stars, although I would say that the 2013 movie starring Mads Mikkelsen is even better.
Recently I saw a GR friend’s review of the novella and was lured to read it. Styled in a chronicle format, the novella is written with impassive detachment, which actually adds to the poignancy of the story that is based on a true event in 16th century Germany (the real person was named Hans Kohlhaas).
Michael Kohlhaas is a horse dealer leading a peaceful life on the border between Saxony and Brandenburg. One day when he takes his horses to a fair as usual, passing through territories that belong to a nobleman von Tronka, he is demanded for the first time to pay tolls and to show his pass. When he fails to produce a pass, his two black horses are forcibly detained as collateral. He leaves his servant behind to tend to the horses while he returns home to see about the issuance of a pass. In his absence, the two horses are made to work the fields and reduced to pitiable state, and his servant savagely beaten up. He tries to seek redress in a Saxony court but his charge is dismissed. His wife decides to help him take the petition to the ruler of Saxony, but is brutally wounded by the ruler’s guards and dies a little later.
Blinding rage spurs Kohlhaas to take revenge against von Tronka, which act balloons into insurgence against the state. The aristocrats decide that Kohlhaas must be punished for his outrageous actions, despite the attempt by Martin Luther and the ruler of Brandenburg to save him.
The climax comes at the very end, which involves a piece of secret paper that Kohlhaas holds, that concerns the fate of the ruler of Saxony.
The novella begs the question: what do you do when you find that the written law doesn't protect your rights and interests?
I found this novella to be a compelling read and am giving it 4 stars, although I would say that the 2013 movie starring Mads Mikkelsen is even better.
September 13, 2017
Harika! Gerçek bir olaydan alınan öykü edilgen bir dille anlatılmış. Bu çeviriden mi kaynaklıdır bilmiyorum ama bence öyküye inanılmaz yakışmış. Kurgu da neredeyse boşluk kalmayacak kadar sıkı ve düzgün örülmüş. Bir daha okunabilecek kitaplardan.
September 21, 2022
YouTube kanalımda Michael Kohlhaas kitabının da içinde bulunduğu kitaplık turu videomu izleyebilirsiniz:
https://youtu.be/a3ctaLux8B4
Michael Kohlhaas, tam anlamıyla feodal sisteme karşı verilen sosyal mücadelenin fert bazında açık bir ifadesidir. Yersiz bir suçlama ve inatçı bir adalet arama düşüncesiyle tam bir bireysel hak arama mücadelesidir. Suçsuz durumdayken suçlu duruma düşmenin kitaplaştırılmış halidir. Ortaçağ kültürü ve Almanyası, ülkenin başındaki prenslerin birbirlerini kayırmaları, Kohlhaas'ın hak arama mücadelesindeki ruh hali gayet açıklayıcı bir biçimde anlatılmış. Bu kitap aslında bize diyor ki; eğer suçsuzsan suçsuzluğunu bil yoksa bir süre sonra mutlaka suçlu bir hale dönüşürsün.
Olayların geçtiği yerlerden biri olan Dresden'in tipik bir Ortaçağ kültürüne sahip şehir olduğunu düşünüyorum. Gotik mimari üslubun Dresden'e vermiş olduğu kasvet ve ezicilik kitapta açıkça belirtilmiş olmasa bile Kohlhaas'ın hak arama mücadelesindeki zorluğun ve çabanın Dresden şehriyle ve Ortaçağ mimari üslubunun insan ihtiyaçlarını dikkate almamasıyla bağdaştırıldığı açık.
Bir dipnot olarak, Kohlhaas romanı için mekan seçimi olarak günümüz Türkiyesi seçilseydi adamcağız ölene kadar ruhsal bir işkence içinde sürünüp dururdu herhalde. Burada ölemiyorsun bile Kohlhaas kardeş. Ölüm, bazı şeylerin kesin çözümü olabiliyor çünkü. Onun için şanslı olduğunu düşünüyorum. Umarım yolun bir gün Türkiye'ye düşer de sana hak arama mücadelelerinin ve fert bazında inatçı bir adalet isteğinin alasını gösterme fırsatını bulurum.
https://youtu.be/a3ctaLux8B4
Michael Kohlhaas, tam anlamıyla feodal sisteme karşı verilen sosyal mücadelenin fert bazında açık bir ifadesidir. Yersiz bir suçlama ve inatçı bir adalet arama düşüncesiyle tam bir bireysel hak arama mücadelesidir. Suçsuz durumdayken suçlu duruma düşmenin kitaplaştırılmış halidir. Ortaçağ kültürü ve Almanyası, ülkenin başındaki prenslerin birbirlerini kayırmaları, Kohlhaas'ın hak arama mücadelesindeki ruh hali gayet açıklayıcı bir biçimde anlatılmış. Bu kitap aslında bize diyor ki; eğer suçsuzsan suçsuzluğunu bil yoksa bir süre sonra mutlaka suçlu bir hale dönüşürsün.
Olayların geçtiği yerlerden biri olan Dresden'in tipik bir Ortaçağ kültürüne sahip şehir olduğunu düşünüyorum. Gotik mimari üslubun Dresden'e vermiş olduğu kasvet ve ezicilik kitapta açıkça belirtilmiş olmasa bile Kohlhaas'ın hak arama mücadelesindeki zorluğun ve çabanın Dresden şehriyle ve Ortaçağ mimari üslubunun insan ihtiyaçlarını dikkate almamasıyla bağdaştırıldığı açık.
Bir dipnot olarak, Kohlhaas romanı için mekan seçimi olarak günümüz Türkiyesi seçilseydi adamcağız ölene kadar ruhsal bir işkence içinde sürünüp dururdu herhalde. Burada ölemiyorsun bile Kohlhaas kardeş. Ölüm, bazı şeylerin kesin çözümü olabiliyor çünkü. Onun için şanslı olduğunu düşünüyorum. Umarım yolun bir gün Türkiye'ye düşer de sana hak arama mücadelelerinin ve fert bazında inatçı bir adalet isteğinin alasını gösterme fırsatını bulurum.
October 20, 2023
It starts as a ripping vicious romp, it descends into endless descriptions of Counts, Chamberlains, and Electors sending edicts back and forth in blocks of prose blandly overexplaining to you a sequence of stuff happening in a style lacking narrative flair or intrigue.
January 26, 2012
_Michael Kohlhaas_ is a fictionalized account of an actual historical event. A horse trader from Brandenburg on a journey to Saxony is falsely extorted for a border crossing by the Squire Wenzel von Tronka, who also keeps two of Kohlhaas’ horses as surety against the trader’s inability to pay. Upon arriving at Saxony, Kohlhass learns that, as he suspected, the border tax was a ruse and on his return journey demands his horses back from the squire. Instead he finds that the servant he had left in charge of the horses was beaten and run out of the castle, and the horses so maltreated and overworked that they are on the point of dying. Infuriated, Kohlhaas demands reparation and thus a saga of justice denied begins.
How far would you go to redress wounded pride? At what point is the pursuit of justice an exercise in diminishing returns or even downright revolt? When is a citizen justified in renouncing his duties to the state if the state does not provide him with protection and justice? All of these questions are examined in this smart and compelling novella written by Heinrich von Kleist in the 19th century. It is obvious that von Kleist sympathizes with Kohlhaas throughout the tale, and the reader can’t help but do the same. Squire Tronka is pictured as the worst kind of nepotistic nobleman, calling on his family connections at court to have all of Kohlhaas’ lawful attempts at receiving justice thwarted. As Kohlhaas’ frustration mounts, so does ours. When his wife, who had pleaded with her husband to be allowed to carry his final petition to the court of the Elector in the assurance that this last ditch attempt to breach the courtly barriers of favouritism and ritual would be successful, is brought back to his home wounded and near death as the result of a mishap at court he can take no more.
Kohlhaas sends a decree to Tronka demanding that his horses be fattened and brought back to health at the Squire’s expense and returned to the horse dealer, along with reparation for the injuries suffered by his servant at the hands of the Squire’s men. Of course, this produces no result and so Kohlhaas, driven to the edge of endurance acquires a troop of men and proceeds to Tronka castle, intent on taking justice for himself if no one else will grant it to him. Kohlhaas is obviously not a man who believes in the old adage about revenge, for he takes his hot and at the end of a flaming torch as he burns Tronka castle to the ground. He pursues the Squire with a blind eye, killing nearly all whom he finds in the castle without distinction and while we may look at his response as extreme I have to admit that I couldn’t help but experience a bout of schadenfreude at the Squire’s turn from a smug, insolent bastard into a frightened, mewling kitten who probably pissed his pants when we discover that
Uncaring of the safety of his guests, Tronka escapes Kohlhaas’ vengeful hand via a secret door and makes haste to a convent that is run, not surprisingly, by his aunt. Kohlhass, disappointed but not defeated, pursues his quarry and a game of cat and mouse ensues. It turns out that the Squire had managed to piss of many more than just the poor horse dealer and as Kohlhaas proclaims his just vengeance to the world, men start to flock to his banner. Soon he is an out-and-out outlaw, burning down the towns that dare keep his victim from Kohlhaas’ hands and the state decides that it must intervene. Matters take a roller coaster turn as Kohlhaas first defies the authorities stating that he is justified in his actions, whatever “laws” he may be breaking, for:
A point that many philosophers might debate, on either side, but a compelling argument nonetheless. Finally Kohlhaas approaches Martin Luther himself, and after some argument the latter agrees to intercede for him to the elector in the name of justice.
It’s at this time that the story takes yet another turn and Kohlhaas the outlaw becomes Kohlhaas the plaintiff as he is apparently granted amnesty for his ravages in the countryside and waits for the interminable grind of the courts to proceed to his case. Of course things do not run smoothly and the ups and downs of Kohlhass’ fortunes are many. In the end it can be said that Kohlhaas both receives and satisfies the requirements of justice and the story itself is a very compelling one that asks some important questions. I enjoyed this work thoroughly. It was a gripping examination of human nature that presents us with a problem that has no easy answers.
How far would you go to redress wounded pride? At what point is the pursuit of justice an exercise in diminishing returns or even downright revolt? When is a citizen justified in renouncing his duties to the state if the state does not provide him with protection and justice? All of these questions are examined in this smart and compelling novella written by Heinrich von Kleist in the 19th century. It is obvious that von Kleist sympathizes with Kohlhaas throughout the tale, and the reader can’t help but do the same. Squire Tronka is pictured as the worst kind of nepotistic nobleman, calling on his family connections at court to have all of Kohlhaas’ lawful attempts at receiving justice thwarted. As Kohlhaas’ frustration mounts, so does ours. When his wife, who had pleaded with her husband to be allowed to carry his final petition to the court of the Elector in the assurance that this last ditch attempt to breach the courtly barriers of favouritism and ritual would be successful, is brought back to his home wounded and near death as the result of a mishap at court he can take no more.
Kohlhaas sends a decree to Tronka demanding that his horses be fattened and brought back to health at the Squire’s expense and returned to the horse dealer, along with reparation for the injuries suffered by his servant at the hands of the Squire’s men. Of course, this produces no result and so Kohlhaas, driven to the edge of endurance acquires a troop of men and proceeds to Tronka castle, intent on taking justice for himself if no one else will grant it to him. Kohlhaas is obviously not a man who believes in the old adage about revenge, for he takes his hot and at the end of a flaming torch as he burns Tronka castle to the ground. He pursues the Squire with a blind eye, killing nearly all whom he finds in the castle without distinction and while we may look at his response as extreme I have to admit that I couldn’t help but experience a bout of schadenfreude at the Squire’s turn from a smug, insolent bastard into a frightened, mewling kitten who probably pissed his pants when we discover that
the Squire, who, to the accompaniment of immoderate laughter, was just reading aloud to a crowd of young friends the decree which the horse-dealer had sent to him, had no sooner heard the sound of his voice in the courtyard than, turning suddenly pale as death, he cried out to the gentlemen—"Brothers, save yourselves!" and disappeared.
Uncaring of the safety of his guests, Tronka escapes Kohlhaas’ vengeful hand via a secret door and makes haste to a convent that is run, not surprisingly, by his aunt. Kohlhass, disappointed but not defeated, pursues his quarry and a game of cat and mouse ensues. It turns out that the Squire had managed to piss of many more than just the poor horse dealer and as Kohlhaas proclaims his just vengeance to the world, men start to flock to his banner. Soon he is an out-and-out outlaw, burning down the towns that dare keep his victim from Kohlhaas’ hands and the state decides that it must intervene. Matters take a roller coaster turn as Kohlhaas first defies the authorities stating that he is justified in his actions, whatever “laws” he may be breaking, for:
"I call that man cast out," answered Kohlhaas, clenching his fist, "who is denied the protection of the laws. For I need this protection, if my peaceable business is to prosper. Yes, it is for this that, with all my possessions, I take refuge in this community, and he who denies me this protection casts me out among the savages of the desert; he places in my hand—how can you try to deny it?—the club with which to protect myself."
A point that many philosophers might debate, on either side, but a compelling argument nonetheless. Finally Kohlhaas approaches Martin Luther himself, and after some argument the latter agrees to intercede for him to the elector in the name of justice.
It’s at this time that the story takes yet another turn and Kohlhaas the outlaw becomes Kohlhaas the plaintiff as he is apparently granted amnesty for his ravages in the countryside and waits for the interminable grind of the courts to proceed to his case. Of course things do not run smoothly and the ups and downs of Kohlhass’ fortunes are many. In the end it can be said that Kohlhaas both receives and satisfies the requirements of justice and the story itself is a very compelling one that asks some important questions. I enjoyed this work thoroughly. It was a gripping examination of human nature that presents us with a problem that has no easy answers.
July 21, 2024
What a hothead. Kohlhaas asked Junker nicely, several times, to be treated justly. But Junker decided to herumficken and find out. Kohlhaas sold his farm, wrote a manifesto, burned down Junker's castle, and declared war on all of Junker's friends. The first part of the book was so exciting that my heart thumped against my doublet. But then Martin Luther entered the story and all the fun stopped. The rest of the story was bogged down by legal and political wrangling.
September 27, 2019
Şu başkaldırı romanları g��zel oluyor gerçekten, tavsiye ederim
January 21, 2022
This novella seems to me a contemplation of justice. There is justice between two individuals, justice between the state and the individual, and how these influence each other. Also there is some poetic justice in the end. If Kleist comes to a conclusion, it might be that a state that cannot guarantee justice is disorderly, even doomed. Alternatively you could read it as a story of a man of principle contending with unprincipled power. In any event, in the end justice is served on all fronts, though in a way that may not please the reader. This reading feels a little superficial to me, but maybe Kleist was reacting to the polemics of his time, which can make works feel prosaic. Or maybe there’s more here than I noticed. It reminded me of Victor Hugo's 'The King Amuses Himself' and Robert Southey’s 'Wat Tyler.' Those also are stories where stalwart individuals react to abuses of power.
It’s interesting how Kleist tells the story without a single line break. No chapters or sections. Just 108 pages straight through. This was clearly intentional because there are places where a break is fitting. The structure feels almost like a court document, a sequential unbroken detailing of events as they happened. And yet the voice feels more like an oral tale. This was a stimulating contrast of mood and form.
It’s interesting how Kleist tells the story without a single line break. No chapters or sections. Just 108 pages straight through. This was clearly intentional because there are places where a break is fitting. The structure feels almost like a court document, a sequential unbroken detailing of events as they happened. And yet the voice feels more like an oral tale. This was a stimulating contrast of mood and form.
April 29, 2023
This fascinating, difficult novella would have a minor claim to perfection within the scope its own designs had Kleist possessed the insight, or discipline, or both, to stick with the vision that shaped the majority of the work. Unfortunately, in the last act the story shifts dramatically in how it functions, and to its substantial detriment.
Up until that point, Kleist's exceedingly-dense story tells the tale of Kohlhaas, a horse merchant who is thoroughly abused by a capricious and haughty minor noble in Saxony. The more he seeks redress through official means, the more he finds himself in a political mire through which no path can be found. When his complaint founders on the rocks of corruption and nepotism, he takes arms and seeks justice for himself.
This all occurs in the first quarter of the book, and I fully expected it to largely be a kind of revenge rampage story, a "man pushed too far" in full cinematic mode. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact, the story takes several very surprising turns and proceeds to describe in artful, lavish detail how Kohlhaas's struggle changes fronts again and again, from the courts to the battlefield and back, and with a great and totally-unexpected-by-me verisimilitude.
As a non-native speaker, I found the German punishingly difficult to read, and I regret I was forced to switch to an excellent English translation halfway through. Sentences like the following are common:
"Der Kämmerer, Herr Kunz, der, in der Qualität eines Geheimenrats, des Herrn geheime Korrespondenz, mit der Befugnis, sich seines Namens und Wappens zu bedienen, besorgte, nahm zuerst das Wort, und nachdem er noch einmal weitläufig auseinandergelegt hatte, daß er die Klage, die der Roßhändler gegen den Junker, seinen Vetter, bei dem Tribunal eingereicht, nimmermehr durch eine eigenmächtige Verfügung niedergeschlagen haben würde, wenn er sie nicht, durch falsche Angaben verführt, für eine völlig grundlose und nichtsnutzige Plackerei gehalten hätte, kam er auf die gegenwärtige Lage der Dinge."
This kind of thing is not that easy to follow even in one's native language, and if there is a reader who can really keep track of the myriad officers and nobles of Saxony, Brandenburg, and Habsburg, as well as whose side everyone is on, they have my genuine respect.
In my opinion, if this story had followed through to the end as it began, it would have been a substantially stronger story, but there is an inexplicable shift of emphasis toward the end, when an event occurs that I will charitably call "improbable". It renders into the hands of our hero a completely arbitrary and superfluous MacGuffin. The episode in question has the strong sense of the supernatural in what is otherwise a painstakingly-realistic work.
Kleist was born a year after the author E. T. A. Hoffmann, and we commonly see in the work of the latter that the entry of uncanny or supernatural powers signals to the reader that we have entered into the realm of the unconscious. Hoffmann used this device to great effect in outstanding works like "Der Sandmann". Kleist, I think, does not share Hoffmann's knack for such writing, and in the context of this story, it occurred to me as capricious and completely distracting. If the entire thing had been excised and the story otherwise unmodified, the end result would have been a better book.
I don't know what went wrong here - perhaps Kleist simply didn't want to tell a strictly-naturalist story. Nevertheless, this is an intriguing and highly imaginative story that is well worth reading.
Up until that point, Kleist's exceedingly-dense story tells the tale of Kohlhaas, a horse merchant who is thoroughly abused by a capricious and haughty minor noble in Saxony. The more he seeks redress through official means, the more he finds himself in a political mire through which no path can be found. When his complaint founders on the rocks of corruption and nepotism, he takes arms and seeks justice for himself.
This all occurs in the first quarter of the book, and I fully expected it to largely be a kind of revenge rampage story, a "man pushed too far" in full cinematic mode. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact, the story takes several very surprising turns and proceeds to describe in artful, lavish detail how Kohlhaas's struggle changes fronts again and again, from the courts to the battlefield and back, and with a great and totally-unexpected-by-me verisimilitude.
As a non-native speaker, I found the German punishingly difficult to read, and I regret I was forced to switch to an excellent English translation halfway through. Sentences like the following are common:
"Der Kämmerer, Herr Kunz, der, in der Qualität eines Geheimenrats, des Herrn geheime Korrespondenz, mit der Befugnis, sich seines Namens und Wappens zu bedienen, besorgte, nahm zuerst das Wort, und nachdem er noch einmal weitläufig auseinandergelegt hatte, daß er die Klage, die der Roßhändler gegen den Junker, seinen Vetter, bei dem Tribunal eingereicht, nimmermehr durch eine eigenmächtige Verfügung niedergeschlagen haben würde, wenn er sie nicht, durch falsche Angaben verführt, für eine völlig grundlose und nichtsnutzige Plackerei gehalten hätte, kam er auf die gegenwärtige Lage der Dinge."
This kind of thing is not that easy to follow even in one's native language, and if there is a reader who can really keep track of the myriad officers and nobles of Saxony, Brandenburg, and Habsburg, as well as whose side everyone is on, they have my genuine respect.
In my opinion, if this story had followed through to the end as it began, it would have been a substantially stronger story, but there is an inexplicable shift of emphasis toward the end, when an event occurs that I will charitably call "improbable". It renders into the hands of our hero a completely arbitrary and superfluous MacGuffin. The episode in question has the strong sense of the supernatural in what is otherwise a painstakingly-realistic work.
Kleist was born a year after the author E. T. A. Hoffmann, and we commonly see in the work of the latter that the entry of uncanny or supernatural powers signals to the reader that we have entered into the realm of the unconscious. Hoffmann used this device to great effect in outstanding works like "Der Sandmann". Kleist, I think, does not share Hoffmann's knack for such writing, and in the context of this story, it occurred to me as capricious and completely distracting. If the entire thing had been excised and the story otherwise unmodified, the end result would have been a better book.
I don't know what went wrong here - perhaps Kleist simply didn't want to tell a strictly-naturalist story. Nevertheless, this is an intriguing and highly imaginative story that is well worth reading.
July 4, 2020
Lo empecé sin mayores expectativas y no he podido dejar de leerlo hasta llegar al final. La forma en que esta narrado es una constante vorágine, te mantiene alerta todo el tiempo.
Además del placer de leerlo también aporta el hecho de hacer reflexionar al lector, pensar sobre la importancia de la justicia y las encerronas burocráticas que aun hoy en día siguen existiendo.
Además del placer de leerlo también aporta el hecho de hacer reflexionar al lector, pensar sobre la importancia de la justicia y las encerronas burocráticas que aun hoy en día siguen existiendo.
October 25, 2017
Миний эрхийг хамгаалахгүй байгаа газар оронд би амьдарч байж чадахгүй!
~ Михаэль Коолхаас
~ Михаэль Коолхаас
August 1, 2022
The one that had Kafka crying
July 30, 2019
Felsefî altyapısı çok güçlü bir kitap ve bu kitabı okumadan önce özellikle Rousseau'nun Toplum Sözleşmesi isimli eserinin mutlaka okunması gerektiğini, sosyal sözleşme teorisi savunucularının fikirlerine mutlaka aşina olunması gerektiğini düşünüyorum.
Michael Kohlhaas, bir at taciri. Kohlhaas, atlarını satmak üzere yola çıkar ve daha önce pek çok geçtiği yolda bu kez durdurulur. Zira yolun üzerinde mülkü bulunan asilzade Junker Wenzel von Tronka, kahyası vasıtasıyla geçiş için bir izin belgesi istemektedir. Kohlhaas, daha önce böyle bir şeye gerek olmadığını söylese de kendisine izin verilmez. Kohlhaas, atlarını ve uşağını asilzadenin malikanesinde b��rakarak izin belgesi almak üzere malikaneyi terk eder. Kohlhaas yetkililere başvurduğunda böyle bir izin belgesine ihtiyaç olmadığı, bir yanlışlık olduğu cevabını alır. Malikaneye apar topar döndü��ünde ise uşağının dövülerek malikaneden gönderildiğini ve atlarının tarladaki işlere koşulduğunu öğrenir. Kohlhaas'ın o harika atları artık perişan bir haldedir. Kohlhaas uğradığı zararının tazmini için mahkemeye başvurur; ancak hiçbir sonuç alamaz; çünkü von Tronka'nın pek çok yerde "adamı" vardır. Kohlhaas ise ne yapıp edip adaleti tesis etmek istemektedir. Bunun için hükümdarla görüşmek ister ve bu hususta karısı kendisine yardım etmeyi teklif eder; fakat karısı bu uğurda ne yazık ki hayatını kaybeder. İşte bu Kohlhaas için bardağı taşıran son damla olur ve Kohlhaas, kendi adaletini kendi tesis etmeye karar verir. Bununla birlikte bu süreçte söz konusu zararda hiçbir payı olmayan kişilere zarar vererek kendisi de başka adaletsizliklere sebep olur.
Kitap okuması kolay bir kitap değil. Felsefî referansları olduğu için söylemiyorum bunu; üslubu açısından söylüyorum. Zira bir paragraf yedi sekiz sayfa uzunluğunda. Herhangi bir bölümleme de yok. Bu da insanı biraz bunaltabiliyor. Buna mukabil, özellikle hukukçuların ve felsefeye ilgi duyanların mutlaka okuması gerektiğini düşünüyorum.
Michael Kohlhaas, bir at taciri. Kohlhaas, atlarını satmak üzere yola çıkar ve daha önce pek çok geçtiği yolda bu kez durdurulur. Zira yolun üzerinde mülkü bulunan asilzade Junker Wenzel von Tronka, kahyası vasıtasıyla geçiş için bir izin belgesi istemektedir. Kohlhaas, daha önce böyle bir şeye gerek olmadığını söylese de kendisine izin verilmez. Kohlhaas, atlarını ve uşağını asilzadenin malikanesinde b��rakarak izin belgesi almak üzere malikaneyi terk eder. Kohlhaas yetkililere başvurduğunda böyle bir izin belgesine ihtiyaç olmadığı, bir yanlışlık olduğu cevabını alır. Malikaneye apar topar döndü��ünde ise uşağının dövülerek malikaneden gönderildiğini ve atlarının tarladaki işlere koşulduğunu öğrenir. Kohlhaas'ın o harika atları artık perişan bir haldedir. Kohlhaas uğradığı zararının tazmini için mahkemeye başvurur; ancak hiçbir sonuç alamaz; çünkü von Tronka'nın pek çok yerde "adamı" vardır. Kohlhaas ise ne yapıp edip adaleti tesis etmek istemektedir. Bunun için hükümdarla görüşmek ister ve bu hususta karısı kendisine yardım etmeyi teklif eder; fakat karısı bu uğurda ne yazık ki hayatını kaybeder. İşte bu Kohlhaas için bardağı taşıran son damla olur ve Kohlhaas, kendi adaletini kendi tesis etmeye karar verir. Bununla birlikte bu süreçte söz konusu zararda hiçbir payı olmayan kişilere zarar vererek kendisi de başka adaletsizliklere sebep olur.
Kitap okuması kolay bir kitap değil. Felsefî referansları olduğu için söylemiyorum bunu; üslubu açısından söylüyorum. Zira bir paragraf yedi sekiz sayfa uzunluğunda. Herhangi bir bölümleme de yok. Bu da insanı biraz bunaltabiliyor. Buna mukabil, özellikle hukukçuların ve felsefeye ilgi duyanların mutlaka okuması gerektiğini düşünüyorum.
January 1, 2023
As I was reading this book, I kept thinking about how it prefigures The Trial, so I was not surprised to find out from a few minutes of internet research that Kafka was a reader of Kleist. On its surface this is a story about an honorable man who relentlessly pursues justice. He is not deterred by the many obstacles he encounters along the way. When the courts and an appeal to the sovereign fail him, he becomes a vigilante, taking justice into his own hands. Along the way, he loses his wife and his business, much property is destroyed, and many people are killed. The corruption and inadequacy of the justice system are exposed again and again and again, but the mayhem of vigilantism is no better. The case twists and turns through a labyrinth of legal and political maneuvering reminiscent of The Trial or Bleak House. Even the intervention of Martin Luther cannot bring the matter to a conclusion. Maybe in the 1500s when the story is set or even in the early 1800s when Kleist was writing, they didn't yet have quite the level of insane bureaucracy that we developed in the 20th Century, but it was more than just the seeds of the modern system of bureaucracy described by Max Weber. The one consistent theme is that none of it has any semblance of justice. So you can read this book as a story of honor and justice or as a story of rage against the machine, but for me it was a cautionary tale about the inhumanity and injustice of the modern world dating back to the era of the Reformation, and how we are all better off just minding our own business than we would be to throw ourselves into the machinery of the system that will only grind us up and spit us out maimed on the other end.
April 23, 2020
First of all, here's Becca Rothfeld saying it better than I can: https://thebaffler.com/latest/crimes-...
Scalding, propulsive momentum. Poor Kohlhaas tries to fight city hall and even though he’s right to be outraged at how he’s being swindled at every turn his righteous outrage is no match for the bureaucracy of early modern Germany. Even Martin Luther passive-aggressively yanks his chain (which really isn’t all that surprising, all things considered). And when he goes on a red-eyed rampage to take back what was apparently never really his to begin with, he loses everything he has in the bargain. And even though there are a lot of people who side with him and his hell-bent marauding it’s really just another calculation in the bigwig’s minds as to how to execute crowd control on a mass scale. His death- public and inevitable- is his own greatest reward. And then everything is just like it was.
Consider a little bit of flaubert’s nihilism irony and exactitude with Kafka’s sense of the near-cosmic bureaucratic absurd and a sliver of lee Marvin in point break who is resolute as a thrown knife about getting his blood money from the faceless corporation without really having much of a reason as to why and that’s pretty much what you’ll get with the tale of poor wretched noble prideful vainglorious herr Kohlhaas.
January 11, 2022
Have I ever read a book before that so clearly made possible the work of another writer? No reader of Kafka can read this and not think of him the entire time. He’s clearly its progenitor.
In this story about a legal system operating on lots of red-tape and nepotism, a man who is wronged takes it upon himself to obtain justice. He’s a nice, upright citizen who very quickly goes to extreme lengths to make himself and his demands understood.
There’s a sense of inevitability from the very beginning, which is a quality in much of Kafka’s work. The short, no nonsense narrative grabbed me and took me hurtling through its absurd twists toward its unavoidable conclusion. It’s interesting because there’s a few ways to read into it, into the character of Michael Kohlhaas and his actions, the government, the reactions of the general public, the stupid things and superstitions in human nature that can affect lawful processes and judicial outcomes – and the way the whole weird story plays out.
The prose, the grammar and syntax, is very unusual. But there’s a rhythm to it that carried me along. I often reread sections, but I also just jumped into the fast flowing river and let it take me.
In this story about a legal system operating on lots of red-tape and nepotism, a man who is wronged takes it upon himself to obtain justice. He’s a nice, upright citizen who very quickly goes to extreme lengths to make himself and his demands understood.
There’s a sense of inevitability from the very beginning, which is a quality in much of Kafka’s work. The short, no nonsense narrative grabbed me and took me hurtling through its absurd twists toward its unavoidable conclusion. It’s interesting because there’s a few ways to read into it, into the character of Michael Kohlhaas and his actions, the government, the reactions of the general public, the stupid things and superstitions in human nature that can affect lawful processes and judicial outcomes – and the way the whole weird story plays out.
The prose, the grammar and syntax, is very unusual. But there’s a rhythm to it that carried me along. I often reread sections, but I also just jumped into the fast flowing river and let it take me.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 444 reviews