The University of Texas at Austin

Law in Popular Culture collection

Legal Studies Forum
Volume 12, Number 1 (1988)
reprinted by permission Legal Studies Forum

RECONCILIATION AND ALIENATION IN KLEIST'S
"MICHAEL KOHLHAAS" AND DOCTOROW'S RAGTIME1

RICHARD STERNE
Simmons College

     The central and most powerful episode in E.L. Doctorow's
novel, Ragtime (1975),2 concerns a character named Coalhouse
Walker Jr., an American black musician who is a contemporary of
Scott Joplin, the ragtime composer and pianist. Walker, after
suffering base injustices at the hands of white men who consider
him an uppity Negro, patiently attempts to gain legal redress. His
efforts fail, however, and his fiancee dies of injuries she incurred
while trying to petition the Vice-President of the United States on
Coalhouse's behalf. The grief-stricken Walker then turns to
violence, with a faithful band of urban guerrillas, in an effort to
obtain a justice that has become, in part, revenge.
     The Coalhouse Walker episode, one of several interwoven
strands in Doctorow's novel, was directly inspired by Heinrich von
Kleist's early nineteenth century German novella, "Michael
Kohlhaas"3 (1810). Doctorow has acknowledged his indebtedness
to the Kleist story, an indebtedness obvious to a reader familiar
with it as well as with Ragtime.4 What I find more interesting,
however, than the similarities between the two works are
differences in tone and perspective which reflect important
cultural differences between Kleist's era and our own.
     We can certainly find alienation in "Michael Kohlhaas" (not
surprisingly, it was a story that Franz Kafka greatly enjoyed),5
but the work also belongs to an idealistic tradition in European
thought and literature. In this tradition, human beings are not

[5]

regarded as cosmic or social aliens, but as participants in an
ordered universe and a society governed by ethical natural law.
The concept of natural law is adumbrated by Sophocles when his
Antigone speaks of the immutable, unwritten laws of heaven.
These laws, she claims, command her to bury her brother; and thus
she must disobey the king's edict which forbids his burial because
he has been a traitor to the state. In Plato's Republic, idealistic
Socrates responds to Thrasymachus's cynical definition of justice
as "the interest of the stronger,"6 by arguing that on the contrary,
justice consists in a harmonious interrelationship of social classes.
Socrates sees this harmony as the imitation of an eternal idea of
harmony.
     The closely related notions of a cosmic order or harmony,
and a natural law that transcends positive laws, were to constitute
a major theme in European writing contending with the cynical
theme articulated by Thrasymachus until late in the nineteenth
century. The concept of natural law, which can be found in
Aristotle, then in Cicero and in Roman jurisprudence, was given a
Christian interpretation by Augustine (who, however, held little
hope that sinful man in the corrupt earthly city could obey God's
natural law), and later by Aquinas and Dante, whose view of man
as a rational social being recalls the ancient Stoics' emphasis upon
the importance of human brotherhood. In the seventeenth
century, the Dutch jurist Grotius, who "regarded international law
as natural law applied to nations,"7 said that natural law would
hold even if there were no God. And in the eighteenth century,
by the eve of the American and French revolutions, the theory of
natural law "had been turned into a theory of natural rights."8
Thomas Jefferson's triad of natural rights -- life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness -- is, like the French revolutionists' "liberte',
egalite", fraternite'," a variation on the old theme of natural law at
a point in history when the sense of a universal rational
community ("from China to Peru") was fading. What was
replacing that sense of community, when Kleist wrote "Michael
Kohlhaas," was the pervasive notion of a society of individuals
whose chief duty was to get rich, or at least avoid poverty, and
who were governed by positive laws which had no transcendental
basis, but were determined by custom and utilitarian concerns.

[6]


     With the ascendency, in the later nineteenth century, of such
hard-boiled concepts as the survival of the fittest, the class
struggle, and the belief, expressed by Dostoevsky's Ivan
Karamazov, that if God does not exist, "everything is permitted,"
the idea of moral natural law seemed, to most modern minds, no
longer pertinent. Thrasymachus had triumphed: it is his notion of
justice as the interest of the stronger that fictional works
concerned with justice have predominantly reflected during the
past hundred years.9
     I shall be arguing in this paper that the Coalhouse Walker
episode in Ragtime enforces the Thrasymachean view that justice
is simply what the strongest -- J.P. Morgan is, in the novel, the
master symbol of ruthless economic and political power -- will it
to be. This is not to say that Doctorow approves the state of
things that he depicts. But the Coalhouse Walker episode (and
Ragtime as a whole) conveys a desolate sense of the alienation of
modern society from the idea of fraternity which is at the heart
of the natural law tradition. I shall also be arguing that "Michael
Kohlhaas" differs markedly from Ragtime in that it exhibits a
tension, characteristic of the Romantic period (Scott and Balzac,
for example, exhibit it)10 between a belief in ethical natural law
and an interpretation of justice as the interest of the stronger.
Kleist ultimately evokes, it seems to me, a sort of absurd
reconciliation between natural law and a judicial process which,
although it has been manipulated by powerful men, retains at
least some integrity.
     "Michael Kohlhaas," a story inspired by an historical
episode,11 concerns a sixteenth century horse-dealer from
Brandenburg who repeatedly attempts to gain legal redress for
wrongs done in neighboring Saxony to two of his horses, and one
of his grooms, by the subordinates of an arrogant Junker, or
knight. The conflict is between a bourgeois with a solid social
position--Kohlhaas's home town is called Kohlhaasenbruck--and an
aristocrat who treats him with contempt. Kohlhaas's quest for
justice, however, is from the outset more than a purely personal
matter. For he has learned of "daily injustices" committed at the
Junker's castle against travellers; and he comes to feel that he has
a duty "to the world at large to exert all his powers in securing

[7]

redress for the wrongs already perpetrated and protection for his
fellow citizens against such wrongs in the future."
     This "praiseworthy feeling," as Kleist calls it (121), is
heightened by the wholehearted encouragement given to Kohlhaas
by his wife, Lisbeth, to "put a stop to abuses of this kind" (126).
But Kohlhaas's efforts to obtain legal relief, first in Saxony where
the injustices against his horses and groom were committed, and
then in his native Brandenburg, are frustrated by relatives of the
Junker, who hold high office in the governments of these two
electorates of the Holy Roman Empire. It is only, however, after
Lisbeth dies of injuries inflicted by a bodyguard of the Elector of
Brandenburg, to which prince she had attempted to present a
petition on her husband's behalf, that Kohlhaas turns to violence.
     Ignoring Lisbeth's dying plea that he obey the Biblical
injunction to forgive his enemies, Kohlhaas draws up an edict in
which, "by virtue of the authority inborn in him,"(137) he orders
the Junker, Wenzel von Tronka, to return to Kohlhaasenbruck his
two black horses which had been worked nearly to death in the
Junker's fields, and to fatten them in person in Kohlhaas's stables
(138). What is most important in the story at this point is the
conflict between Kohlhaas's wife's feeling that he should forgive
the Junker, and Kohlhaas's insistence that the Junker compensate
the injustices he has done. What, Kleist seems to be asking, is our
deeper ethical responsibility (or higher commandment of natural
law) - to forgive those who have wronged us, or to demand that
they do whatever can be done to set things right?
     Kohlhaas, receiving no reply from von Tronka to his demand
for specific performance, attacks and burns, with the aid of
several grooms, the knight's castle. Followers of von Tronka, and
a relative, are killed during this assault. But von Tronka himself
escapes. Grimly, Kohlhaas composes at the ruined castle what he
calls a "Declaration under the Writ of Kohlhaas," calling upon the
whole country "to withhold all aid and comfort" from the Junker,
against whom he is engaged in what he calls a "just war."
Furthermore, Kohlhaas requires the inhabitants "to surrender the
Junker" to him "on pain of death and the certain destruction by
fire of whatever they possessed (140-141)."

[8]

     Realizing, however, that he can't make good on this threat
with his tiny band of ten, Kohlhaas puts out a recruiting writ
which brings him an army of unemployed men attracted by the
prospect of pay and plunder. With this army he burns the town of
Wittenberg, where he has learned the Junker is hiding. And a
notice fastened to a Wittenberg church door threatens to continue
the razing of the town until von Tronka is turned over to him.
After two more fires, the terrified townspeople prevail upon their
governor to remove the Junker from Wittenberg. He is
transported, secretly, to Leipzig, whither the well-informed
Kohlhaas immediately follows him, and sets that place on fire. He
now issues a writ calling himself "an emissary of the archangel
Michael," come to punish all who side with von Tronka. And at
the end of still another manifesto, in which he appeals to the
people to join him in establishing a better order of things, he
signs, with what Kleist calls "a touch of madness," "Given at the
seat of our Provisional World Government, Lutzen Castle (148)."
     Kohlhaas's language, if it does seem a bit mad, also recalls
that of a philosopher with whose writings Kleist was familiar:
Immanuel Kant. In his treatise, "Perpetual Peace" (1795), Kant
argued that the "international law" which Grotius had regarded as
natural law applied to nations, was actually not international at
all, since the individual nations were "under no common external
authority." In order to end the international anarchy which
perpetuated war, Kant called for a "federation" of nations under a
"covenant of peace."12 It is worth noting that Michael Kohlhaas,
before experiencing injustice, first at the hands of the Junker and
then at the hands of the politicians who prevented him from
obtaining legal redress, had been "a paragon of civil virtues (114)."
When he came to perceive moral chaos where he had expected to
find moral order, he dreamed of changing the world. His
"madness" lies in the disparity between the ambition that his
language indicates and the meagreness of his chance of fulfilling
it.
     Kohlhaas's World Government manifesto is followed by a
coup de theatre, for which Kleist had found a basis in his sixteenth
century source. Kohlhaas's depredations have attracted the angry
attention of a famous former rebel, Martin Luther. Luther, of

[9]

course, had once used a Wittenberg church for his own posting
purposes, and had later been excommunicated by the Pope. Now
an "establishment" figure, he causes proclamations to be posted
throughout Saxony, denouncing the horse-trader as "the very
embodiment of injustice," and warning him that he will end his
life on the gallows (149-50). Kohlhaas reveres the leader of the
Reformation. Immediately upon reading Luther's attack upon
him, he leaves for Wittenberg, visits Luther by night, and explains
that society has cast him out by refusing him the protection of its
law. If, says Kohlhaas, Luther will obtain for him a safe conduct
to Dresden, capital of Saxony, in order that he may re-open his
legal case against the Junker, he will disband his army. Although
Luther balks at this proposal because of the revenge that Kohlhaas
has already taken with his sword upon the Junker, he softens
when the horse-trader says he means to show in court that his
wife has not died in an unjust cause. Still, Luther asks him if he
would not have done better to forgive the Junker "for your
Redeemer's sake, and take the horses away, thin and scraggy as
they were." This, we recall, is essentially what Kohlhaas's dying
wife had wanted him to do. Kohlhaas replies,
"...maybe, or maybe not. If I had known that it
would take the heart's blood of my beloved
wife to get them on their feet again, I might
have done as your Reverence suggests, and not
made a fuss of a bushel of oats! But now that
they have come to cost me so dear, I think the
matter should take its course. Let judgment be
passed, as is my due, and let the Junker fatten
my blacks for me." (154)
     There is no touch of madness here. Rather, there is a
profound awareness within Kohlhaas of the tragedy precipitated
by his persistence in a quest for justice, justice not solely for
himself but for others whom the Junker had treated with
contempt. In effect, Kohlhaas is saying to Luther what a
rebellious Luther had once said, "Here I stand, I cannot do
otherwise."13

[10]

     Although indignant at Kohlhaas's refusal to forgive the
Junker, Luther does write to the Saxon Elector, requesting an
amnesty for Kohlhaas who, he declares, should be treated not so
much as a rebel against the Crown, than as a foreign invading
power. It is ironic that while the horse-dealer's non-violent
efforts to secure justice had failed, and indeed culminated in
Lisbeth's death, the murderous violence committed by his army
has won him a written plea for amnesty from a celebrated
preacher of submission to civil authority. But this is not the only
irony in the Luther episode. For Kohlhaas, having publicly
proclaimed his intention to establish a better moral order, and
having set up a Provisional World Government, now abandons his
principles and his followers: he promises to disband his army, and
go peacefully to court over what he has referred to as a bushel of
oats. There certainly is absurdism in "Michael Kohlhaas"; Kleist
does anticipate Kafka.
     Luther's letter proves effective. The Saxon Elector grants
Kohlhaas an amnesty. But then, through a complex series of
events -- including the Saxon Elector's betrayal of the horse-
dealer, and a bargain with Saxony by the Elector of Brandenburg,
who is remorseful over his earlier failure to aid his loyal subjects
-- the following judicial arrangement is made. Kohlhaas is to be
put on trial in Berlin for having broken the peace of the Holy
Roman Emperor, upon whom Saxony's original amnesty is not
binding. And a lawyer from Kohlhaas's native Brandenburg is to
sue the Junker in a Dresden court for redress of the horse-dealer's
personal grievances. The strange, mixed results of this
arrangement are that the Junker is at last condemned to two years
in jail, and that on the day of Kohlhaas's execution for his crimes
against the Emperor's peace, he is given back, in good condition,
to his great joy, the two black horses which had been so miserably
mistreated.
     There is, however, an additional episode in the novella
which is bizarre, but important from the viewpoint of our concern
with the tension between natural law and Thrasymachean
cynicism in "Michael Kohlhaas." Shortly after Lisbeth's death, the
horse-trader, who had set out in quest of the Junker, stopped at a
town fair which was also attended by the Elector of Saxony. An

[11]

old gypsy woman, whom the Elector had asked to tell his fortune,
approached Kohlhaas in the crowd and announced to him that if
the elector wanted to know his fortune, he would have to ask the
horse-trader about it. She then gave Kohlhaas a sealed piece of
paper which she called an amulet that would save his life. Later
in the story, when Kohlhaas is being taken to Berlin to be tried
for breaking the Emperor's peace, he angrily rejects an offer from
an emissary of the Elector to grant him his freedom in exchange
for the sealed paper. While Kohlhaas is in prison, awaiting
execution, he is visited by the gypsy, who now bears a remarkable
resemblance to Lisbeth, and who tells him that the Elector has
learned from her that his fortune--the destiny of his house--is
grim. The Elector, she further informs him, is desperately anxious
to obtain the details i n the sealed "fortune." And she urges the
horse-trader, for the sake of his children, to trade the fortune for
his life. But Kohlhaas despises the Elector for having broken his
word to him with respect to the amnesty, and he tells the gypsy
that only her unequivocal request will make him part with the
paper which "in so miraculous a way gives me satisfaction for
everything I have suffered. (207)." The gypsy concedes that in
many ways he is right, and that he may do as he pleases.
     On his execution day, Kohlhaas receives a written warning
from the gypsy that the Elector plans to disinter the paper
immediately after Kohlhaas's burial. The horse-dealer forestalls
that move with panache: striding up to the Elector, he unseals the
paper, reads what is written on it, swallows it, and as the Elector
faints, turns to the scaffold, where his head is lopped off.
     It is notable that the gypsy, who so strongly resembles
Kolhaas's wife, both urges conciliation on him and sympathizes
with his desire to keep, out of contempt for Saxon elector, the
sealed fortune. May Kleist be suggesting that there are
circumstances to which no clear law of reason applies? That there
are appropriate limits to conciliation and forgiveness, even though
forgiveness is a central tenet of Christian (if not of Greek and
Roman) natural law? If Kleist seems, in the Gypsy episode, to be
balancing agape and vengeance, he appears to be making an
absurd reconciliation in the novella of natural law with the state's
judicial processes; for it is only by committing murderous

[12]

depredations, in violation of natural law, for which he is
condemned in a trial, that Kohlhaas wins a courtroom hearing for
his just accusations against the Junker--and thus achieves the
Junker's imprisonment, the restoration of his own horses, and
compensation for the medical expenses of his groom.
     In my own view, the single most arresting element in
"Michael Kohlhaas" is the horse-trader's brief effort to establish a
world government founded on justice. Kleist here seems to be
actuated by a Kantian sense of natural law, even if his
protagonist's proclamation is quixotically premature. We shall see
how Doctorow, in Ragtime, sardonically alters this episode in
Kleist's novella.
     Coalhouse Walker Jr., the character in Ragtime who
corresponds to Kleist's respectable bourgeois horse-dealer, is a
black man with no status in early twentieth century American
society. There is pathos in the "Junior" at the end of Coalhouse
Walker's name. For nothing at all is known about his parents.
Apparently he was born in St. Louis, had known and admired the
ragtime composer, Scott Joplin, and had paid for his piano studies
with money he earned as a stevedore. But no high school records
exist for Walker, and it's not known how he acquired his
impressive vocabulary and his dignified manner of speaking. The
man is essentially an alien in a Caucasian society in which, as the
narrator ironically observes, "there were no Negroes (4)." What he
means, of course, is that Negroes were invisible as persons; they
existed, in early twentieth century America, only in their
generality, as members of a group--as immigrants did, and poor
people, and women.
     It is by acting as a human being, rather than as a member of
a stereotyped group, that Coalhouse Walker gets into trouble. He
is driving along a New Rochelle, New York, road in his new
Model T Ford (black, of course, like Michael Kohlhaas's
mistreated horses), when he is stopped by members of the Emerald
Isle Engine, a company of volunteer firemen. They demand a toll
of him, as a toll was demanded of Kohlhaas at the Junker's castle.
To the firemen, many of whom are clearly recent immigrants,
Walker is an "uppity Negro" -- who is he to own a new Model T? --

[13]

and must be taught a lesson. Here, instead of a conflict between a
haughty aristocrat and a solid bourgeois, as in Kleist's novella, we
have a conflict involving racism and economic envy, between
relatively poor whites and a Negro who is behaving as if he has a
white man's right to drive a car along a public road.
     The Fire Chief, Willie Conklin (the name sounds like "Wenzel
von Tronka"), replies to Walker's reasonable objection to paying a
toll, by gratuitously insulting him. Whereupon Walker goes off to
lodge a complaint, unsuccessfully as it turns out, with a
policeman. When he returns to his Ford he finds mud spattered on
it, a hole in its top, and a human excrement on its back seat. At
the corresponding point in Kleist's story, Kohlhaas is able to
initiate an inquiry into the injustice that has been done him. But
when Walker complains vehemently to the cop he'd earlier
appealed to unsuccessfully, he is himself arrested -- on such
imaginative charges as drunkenness, and causing a nuisance.
Neither the white New Rochelle citizen who bails him out of jail
--  this is Father, head of a family whose members we know in
Ragtime as Mother, Mother's Younger Brother, Grandfather, and
the Boy (who narrates the events of the novel) -- nor Coalhouse
Walker is able to find a lawyer who will press Walker's claim for
repair and restitution of his desecrated Ford. But Sarah, a lovely
young black woman who has borne a child to the much older
Walker, and who after a long courtship finally agreed to marry
him, conceives the notion of petitioning the United States
government in his behalf. She goes to the New Rochelle hotel
where, she has learned, President Taft's Vice-President (we are in
1912) will be speaking; she runs toward the Vice-President, and is
fatally injured by a militiaman who shoves his rifle butt against
her chest to prevent what he fears is an assassination attempt. In
Kleist's story, Kohlhaas's wife's idea of petitioning the
Brandenburgian Elector seems not completely impracticable.
Sarah's venture, however, is hopeless in a society that relegates
blacks to positions as servants and menials, and that fears or hates
them when they act as independent persons.
     After a Harlem funeral for Sarah, at which the mourners are
mostly Coalhouse's fellow musicians, Walker turns to violence.
With a band of young black men he makes a buckshot attack on

[14]

the firemen of the Emerald Isle company. Several firemen are
killed, and a boiler in the firehouse explodes, frightening all of
New Rochelle. Two New York City newspapers print letters from
Coalhouse which the New Rochelle newspapers have refused to
publish: Walker demands in these letters that "the infamous Fire
Chief of the Volunteers" be "turned over to my justice" (243), and
that the Model T be returned to its original condition. And like
Kleist's Junker, hiding out in Wittenberg, then Leipzig, Willie
Conklin -- hiding out in fear of his life in the New Rochelle
Police Station -- becomes "a despised person everywhere (252)."
     Coalhouse Walker Jr., of course, has aroused intense fear
everywhere. Father, who had posted bail for him, is now advising
the police on how to set up defenses against what he calls "a
peaceful man driven mad by circumstances not of his own doing
(249)." Walker, however, has gained one white ally in Mother's
Younger Brother. This lost, unhappy young man feels the
injustice that has been done to Coalhouse; and knowing, as he tells
Walker, how to blow things up, he avails himself of the resources
of Father's (his brother-in-law's) fireworks factory in order to do
some dynamiting for the black urban guerrillas. Nobody, it's
worth noting, corresponds to Mother's Younger Brother in Kleist's
story. His role in Ragtime is evidently to point up, by the unique
stand that he takes as a white man fighting for Coalhouse, the
massive social rejection of Walker as soon as the frustrated Negro
turns from impotent protest to violence. A week after the
guerrilla army's buckshot attack on the Emerald Isle, Municipal
Fire Station No. 2 in New Rochelle is blown up by Walker's men,
and nobody suspects who has masterminded this new act of terror.
     Walker's second public letter is now printed in New York
City newspapers. It demands that "the white excrescence known
as Willie Conklin be turned over" to Coalhouse's justice, and that
the Model T be returned to its original condition. Like Kohlhaas,
Walker declares that until these demands are met the rules of war
will prevail. He signs the letter, however, in a way that is notably
different from Kohlhaas's signature: Coalhouse Walker Jr.,
President, Provisional American Government (255). This is a
claim to power in a national state, rather than the claim to moral
authority that Kohlhaas makes as head of a "Provisional World

[15]

Government." The Kantian notion of World Government is, as we
have seen, founded on the concept of natural law. But the
national state is the sole political power that even a good man like
Coalhouse Walker is capable of conceiving in a modern world
alienated from the idea of natural law.
     It is significant that in Kleist's novella, Martin Luther
appears on the scene, at first to chastise the horse-trader publicly,
but then to intervene on his behalf when he is persuaded that
Kohlhaas has actually been made an outlaw by society. Luther
thus takes a stand for justice, in seeking to reconcile the bitterly
angry Kohlhaas with the Saxon government. But nobody in
Ragtime performs a conciliating role like Luther's. An alienist,
hired by the New York World newspaper, solemnly declares that
the letter in which Walker calls himself President, Provisional
American Government, is quite "advanced in its signals of mental
deterioration," and that it would be a strategic mistake to deal
with someone in the throes of progressive madness as if he were
open to reason (274). This psychiatric diagnosis of Walker
demeans him in its blindness to his sense of injustice. Kleist
attributes to Kohlhaas a "touch of madness" when he speaks of his
"Provisional World Government," but Kohlhaas's enemies do not
put him beyond the pale of rational discourse. In Ragtime, even
when Coalhouse Walker's Ford is resurrected from the New
Rochelle pond into which it had been pushed, and the automobile
stands as tangible proof of Walker's grievance (274-75), the Mayor
and Board of Aldermen denounce the "colored madman (274)."
     What appears to everybody as the final proof of Coalhouse's
insanity is his guerrillas' occupation of J.P. Morgan's Library, with
its celebrated art collection, on 36th Street in Manhattan. (That
this event -- like many others in Ragtime in which historical persons
are involved in ways that startle the reader -- never occurred in
historical time, does not bother Doctorow. In an essay called
"False Documents," he writes:
... as a novelist ... I could claim that history is a
kind of fiction in which we live and hope to
survive, and fiction is a kind of speculative
history ... by which the available data for the
[16]

composition is seen to be greater and more
various in its sources than the historian
supposes.)14
     Coalhouse's intention in this demarche is to make J. P.
Morgan a prisoner in his own home, and hold him as a hostage for
Fire Chief Conklin. However, two reconnoiterers for Coalhouse
have mistaken Morgan's white marble Library for his house,
which is next door, and furthermore have not learned that Morgan
is actually at sea, bound for Rome and Egypt. So what Coalhouse
does, once his ordnance man, Mother's Younger Brother, is
ensconced with his dynamite in the Morgan Library, is to
telephone the Manhattan District Attorney, and threaten to blow
up the place in twenty-four hours if his demands are not met: the
return of his car "in just the condition it was when my way was
blocked"; and for the life of "my Sarah .... the life of Chief Conklin
(319)."
     While, as I have noted, nobody in Ragtime plays a role
comparable to Luther's in supporting Kohlhaas's claim that the
state has actually made him an outlaw, an American historical
figure does at this juncture in Ragtime play a significant part.
But his behavior indicates very clearly the difference between
Doctorow's moral despair and Kleist's qualified idealism. The
American historical figure is Booker T. Washington, who of course
had risen from slavery to national prominence in the late
nineteenth century as an eloquent advocate of conciliation of
whites in order that Negroes might make social and ecomonic
progress. Absolutely opposed to all agitation by blacks,
Doctorow's Washington is horrified, and for that matter feels
personally insulted, by what he tells Walker (for he has been
permitted to enter the occupied Library) is his "misguided
criminal recklessness (325-26)." But then, modulating from anger
to what he intends as reasonableness, he asks Walker to accompany
him out of the building, saying that he will intercede for the sake
of mercy "that your trial shall be swift and your execution
painless (327)." Now Walker admires Washington, as Kohlhaas did
Luther (Doctorow reminds us explicitly of the Kleist story by
mentioning portraits of Luther by Cranach on the red silk walls
of the Morgan Library), and Washington's plea elicits a

[17]

modification of Coalhouse's demands. Walker tells the Negro
leader that if the Fire Chief brings his restored automobile to the
front of the building, he will come into the street with his hands
raised. But Washington, hearing only a rejection of the plea he
has made, walks out.
     In short, everyone in the society that Doctorow depicts--
except for a radical like Emma Goldman who is glad that Walker
has appropriated the property of a man who "has done some
appropriating of his own" (322), and except for Mother's unhappy
Younger Brother--is virtually deaf to Walker's plea for justice. In
Kleist's novella, the government of Brandenburg, whose Elector is
remorseful over his failure to have done justice to Kohlhaas
before Lisbeth's death, promotes the arrangement of concurrent
trials, the outcome of which is equity, at last, for the horse-dealer,
before his beheading. In Ragtime, the Coalhouse Walker problem
is efficiently solved by J.P. Morgan himself. He cables to the
Manhattan District Attorney: "GIVE HIM HIS AUTO, AND
HANG HIM."
     It is true that this solution is unsatisfactory to the District
Attorney, who wants simply to execute the "coon" (331).
Coalhouse's guerrillas, on the other hand, are bitterly disappointed
by Walker's willingness to accept an amnesty for them--he has
insisted on this--in addition to the restoration of his Ford by the
Fire Chief, in return for his own surrender. But Walker has
wanted to die since the death of his Sarah. The violence he has
committed has been inspired chiefly by his angry grief over her
death. When, in fulfillment of the bargain he has made with the
District Attorney, he walks out into the street and is shot down by
policemen who fire on him at will, his death has the quality of a
sacrifice.
     Walker's black followers, however, seem to have been
actuated chiefly by a desire to strike back at white men, and to
get power for Coalhouse--a name they use as if it is a mystical
body of which they are a part.15 Mother's Younger Brother does
have a keen sense of the injustices that have been done to Walker.
But by the end of his life, which occurs in Mexico--after he has

[18]

driven there in Walker's restored Ford, to fight for the Zapatistas
he seems obsessed with violence. And he leaves an ironic
legacy. For Doctorow tells us that
In the year and a half of his life before his
emigration, Mother's Younger Brother invented
seventeen ordnance devices, some of which
were so advanced that they were not used by
the United States until World War II. (366)
     Coalhouse Walker, with his intense sense of personal
injustice, his love so strong for his fiancee that he no longer
values his own life after she loses hers on his behalf and his
loyalty to and affection for his followers that cause him to give
himself up in order to ensure their safety, is a moving figure. But
alienated from a society that fears and hates a proud Negro, he
also seems to exhibit some of the atomistic tendencies of our
modern culture. It is never clear that, in attempting to secure
redress for his own grievances, Coalhouse hopes, as Kohlhaas
does--at least at first--to obtain redress for wrongs done to others.
And Walker's calling himself President of a Provisional American
Government suggests not an aspiration to establish a better social
order, but a desire to be top man in a society that has driven him
to bitter despair.
     Michael Kohlhaas, on the other hand, incarnates a natural
law that retains some vitality in the early nineteenth century
society in which Kleist wrote his novella. The horse-dealer is
acting not only on his own behalf, but on that of others who have
suffered injustice, when he "proclaims" a Provisional World
Government. Indeed, his conception of a social order more just
than the one against which he has waged bloody war, is
reminiscent of the prophetic vision, or hope, of Isaiah and Micah:
Nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
Neither shall they learn war any more.



ENDNOTES

1. An earlier version of this article was read as a paper at
the November, 1986 meeting in Philadelphia of the American
Legal Studies Association. For criticisms which led me to revise a
few segments of that paper, I am indebted to colleagues in the
Simmons College Department of English, especially David Gullette
and Lowry Pei.

2. Citations from E.L. Doctorow, Ragtime (New York: Bantam
Books, 1976), will be identified by page numbers in parentheses in
the body of the article.

3. Heinrich von Kleist, The Marquise of 0 -- and Other Stories,
trans. David Luke and Michael Reeves (Harmondsworth,
Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1978). Citations of "Michael
Kohlhaas" from this work will be identified by page numbers in
parentheses in the body of the article.

4. For a brief summary of similarities between Kleist's story
and Doctorow's novel, see John Ditsky, "The German Source of
Ragtime," E.L. Doctorow: Essays and Conversations, ed. Richard
Trenner (Princeton: Ontario Review Pr., 1983) 179-81.

5. Martin Greenberg, in the preface to his translation of
Kleist's Marquise of 0 -- and Other Stories (New York: Frederick
Ungar Publishing Co., 1973), says (27) that Kafka liked to recite
"Michael Kohlhaas" aloud to his friends, and that he once gave a
public reading from it in Prague.

6. Scott Buchanan, ed., The Portable Plato: Protagoras,
Symposium, Phaedo, and the Republic, trans. Benjamin Jowett 
(New York:Viking Press, 1948) 298-99.

7. Contemporary Civilization Staff of Columbia College,
Columbia University, Introduction to Contemporary Civilization in
the West: A Source Book, 2 vols. (New York: Columbia U. Pr., 
1946) 1:878.

8. A.P. d'Entreves, Natural Law: An Introduction to Legal
Philosophy (London: Hutchinson and Co., 1951) 60.

9. Notable examples of such fictional works are Tolstoy's
Resurrection, Kafka's Trial, Dreiser's American Tragedy, Camus'
Stranger, and Kundera's Joke.

10. In Honore' de Balzac's "The Red Inn" [1831], Philosophic
Studies, III, trans. G. Burnham Ives, La Comedie Humaine (Phila.:
Geo. Barrie and Sons, 1899), a young Frenchman living in
materialistic France a few decades after the Revolution, discovers
that a young woman whom he loves will inherit from her father a
large sum of money which he had obtained through robbery and
murder. The woman knows nothing of her father's crimes, but the
protagonist, not wanting to benefit from them, has scruples about
asking her to marry him. He convokes a "sanhedrin" composed of
friends whom he particularly trusts, and asks them to vote
anonymously either in favor of or against his proposing to the
heiress. The result of the vote is eight in favor, nine against. But
when it occurs to him to count the number of "sanhedrin"
members who are roughly his own age, he finds nine, and
concludes that their "no" votes were altogether cynical: each of
these men, whose values were formed during what the protagonist
obviously considers the dishonest decades following the French
Revolution, wants to marry the wealthy woman himself. Ethical
natural law has been upheld only by the members of the tribunal
who belong to an older, more scrupulous generation. Sir Walter
Scott's The Heart of Midlothian ( 1818) is another early nineteenth
century variation on the conflict between an ethical and a
Thrasymachean concept of justice.

11. On the "old chronicle" which was Kleist's historical
source, see Walter Silz, Heinrich von Kleist: Studies in His Works 
and Literary Character (Philadelphia: U. of Pa. Pr., 1961) 186.

12. Contemporary Civilization Staff, Introduction to
Contemporary Civilization, 1:886-887.

13. Roland H. Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther
(New York: New American Library, 1955) 144.

14. Trenner, E.L. Doctorow: Essays and Conversations, 24.

15. Barbara Foley, in "From U.S.A. to Ragtime: Notes on the
Forms of Historical Consciousness in Modern Fiction," repr.
Trenner, E.L. Doctorow, Essays and Conversations, criticizes 
(167) Doctorow's "willful manipulation of the historical record,"
observing that "the terrorist bombings of the 'Coalhouse' gang,
their designation of themselves as the 'Provisional American
Government,' their takeover of the Morgan mansion as a symbolic
political gesture--these are elements more distinctly reminiscent of
the 1960's than of the ragtime era."