States of Gewalt: Violence in the Works of Heinrich von Kleist by Seth Harmon Thomas B.A., Idaho State University, 2014 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Germanic and Slavic Languages and Literatures 2019 i This thesis titled: States of Violence: Gewalt in the Works of Heinrich von Kleist written by Seth Harmon Thomas has been approved for the Department of Germanic and Slavic Languages and Literatures ___________________________________________________________ (Dr Arne Höcker, Chair) ___________________________________________________________ (Dr Helmut Muller-Sievers) ___________________________________________________________ (Dr Julie Carr) Date:_______________ The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline. ii Thomas, Seth Harmon (M.A., German Studies) States of Violence: Gewalt in the Works of Heinrich von Kleist Thesis directed by Assistant Professor Arne Höcker ABSTRACT The works of Heinrich von Kleist are known for their rich complexity and multifaceted nature, which often defy singular or holistic readings through an employment of paradoxes, impasses, and contradictions. However, despite their high level of plasticity and their inexhaustible nature, his works often touch on two themes: violence and the nation. This thesis will argue that these two themes are inseparably connected, and through readings of Penthesilea, Die Hermannsschlacht, and Michael Kohlhaas it will demonstrate how Kleist uses physical violence to expose latent forms of institutional violence hidden within the power structures of nationality. Through an understanding of the German term Gewalt as a conceptualization of power, strength, authority, might, and dominion, it will be argued that Kleist perceived these concepts are synonyms for violence that find their expression in the conceptualizations of sovereign authority put forth by Thomas Hobbes, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. In Penthesilea the concept of the founding myth as a structure for violently establishing, maintaining, and enforcing national institutions will be explored. It will be argued that Kleist’s depiction of a matriarchal society is still subject to a patriarchal superstructure. Building off of the conceptualization of myth put forth in Penthesilea, Die Hermannsschlacht will explore how Kleist problematizes his own propaganda against the French state through an ambivalent portrayal of patriotic violence, in which the ends of freedom are questioned by the violent means Hermann uses to achieve them. Lastly, a reading of Michael Kohlhaas will be used to explore the notion of violence as a means of legal authority. It will be explored how the inability of the Saxon government to protect its citizen’s civic rights through legal recourse results in a collapse of the social contract, and forces iii Kohlhaas to use violence from outside the law in order to reinvigorate it. Finally, through the narrational subplot of the Gypsy woman and the unspoken prophecy the themes of violence, power, and authority explored in this essay will be brought together as manifestations of the written word in literature. A medium, that allows for a middle path to be trod between violence and Enlightened discourse. iv Contents Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………1 1. Gewalt and Nationality………………………………………………………………………..5 2. Penthesilea: Violence and Myth………………………………………………………………9 3. Die Hermannsschlacht: Violence and Power .........................................................................26 4. Michael Kohlhaas: Violence and the Law…………………………………………………..41 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………..56 Endnotes…………………………………………………………………………………………59 v Introduction Heinrich von Kleist is one of German literature’s most enigmatic figures. From 1802 to his suicide in 1811 he wrote eight dramas, eight novellas, and a body of artistic and political essays that “called into question the prevailing intellectual, aesthetic, and ethical orthodoxies of the age” (Howe, 1). Often rooted within a historical context his literary style has a penchant for blurring the lines between reality and fantasy, and during an age dominated by the aesthetic harmony between substance and form,1 his works are contentious, chaotic, unstable, and brutally violent. Unfortunately, this tendency to cut against the aesthetic grain of his own age meant that most of his work was not well received by his contemporaries, and it wasn’t until the late 19th century that he became an object of interest for dramaturges and literary scholars.2 There are various reasons as to why this occurred, but the most commonly held belief is that Kleist was simply ahead of his time3. Given what he lacked in popularity during the 19th century he has more than made up for things in the 20th century, and academic scholarship has come to contextualize him in one of two ways: First, due to the fact that “that his works bristle with paradoxes, ambiguities, and tensions” (Howe, 2), it is common to position him in relation to 20th century aesthetics and to read him “as something of a deconstructionist avant la lettre” (3) 4, and second, due to the Kant-Crisis that marked the beginning of his literary career, it is equally common to position his work in opposition to the enlightenment and more specifically thinkers such as Immanuel Kant and Jean-Jacques Rousseau5. Additionally, when one removes the context and theory that has evolved around Kleistian scholarship the works themselves have proven to be puzzles in their own right. Some, such as Das Erdbeben in Chili, defy a holistic reading by problematizing the very notion of interpretation, while others, such as Die 1 Hermannsschlacht, actively undercut Kleist’s own authorial intent by problematizing its own propaganda. This high level of plasticity and the inexhaustible nature of not only his oeuvre but also the literary and philosophical context that surrounds him makes approaching and orienting oneself within Kleistian scholarship difficult6. Depending on how one chooses to approach a specific text the same signifier can have different meanings. For example, the severing of the left breast in the Amazon origin myth in Penthesilea can be read as both a sign of state sanctioned oppression (Stephens, 107) and as female emancipation (Griffiths, 55). However, despite the complexity and diversity of his work there are two nearly universal themes that define Kleist as a whole: violence and the modern nation-state7. This thesis will argue that these two themes are inseparably connected within Kleist’s work, and through readings of Penthesilea, Die Hermannsschlacht, and Michael Kohlhaas it will demonstrate Kleist’s ability to frame gratuitous acts of physical violence in such a way that it exposes latent forms of institutional violence hidden within the power structures of nationality. It will begin by briefly breaking down the etymology of the German term Gewalt to demonstrate that for Kleist and his contemporaries violence was synonymous with concepts of power, strength, authority, might and dominion, and this conceptualization will then be contextualized through the political concepts of nationality put forward by Hobbes’ Leviathan, and Rousseau’s The Social Contract. A reading of Penthesilea will follow, in which Penthesilea’s narration of the Amazon origin myth will be used to explore how the Amazon nation-state of Themiscrya uses its foundational myth to justify acts of institutional violence against the individual. It will be shown how this institutional violence supports a latent patriarchal substructure that undermines the 2 Amazon ideal of the emancipated women, and how Penthesilea’s brutal dismemberment of Achilles in the play’s final scenes is also an attack on the signifiers of this patriarchal superstructure. Drawing on the insights of national myth established in Penthesilea, Kleist’s narrative of Germany’s own origin myth in Die Hermannsschlacht will become the next focal point. Inspired by Germany’s occupation by the French during the Napoleonic Wars, this drama was intended to serve as propaganda for a united emancipated Germany, while also putting forward a model of partisan warfare by which Germany’s citizens could rise up against their oppressors. However, through this reading it will be shown how Hermann’s partisan tactics against the Romans perpetrates violence against his own people, and how he justifies this violence through the rallying cry of freedom and liberty. Hermann’s success against the Romans allows him to re- empower the German political structure by accumulating power unto himself. This results in a fundamental restructuring of Germany’s political institutions under a tyrannical ruler that bears a striking resemblance to Napoleon. Lastly, Michael Kohlhaas will be used to explore how the concept of law, as imagined in the modern nation-state, rests on the threat of violence. As Kohlhaas responds to the unjust acts of violence perpetrated on him by the state he finds himself increasingly blackballed by corrupt judges and bureaucrats. Finding himself outside the protection of the law Kohlhaas resorts to violence and terrorism in an attempt to achieve justice, and in so doing becomes a force capable of changing the law by enacting violence on it. This capacity to exercise violence and terror