Moor or Less: An Examination of Setting and Its Effects on Conflict and Characterization in Friedrich Schiller's The Robbers
By Erin Looney
Eighteenth-century playwright Friedrich Schiller’s The Robbers is a drama rife with castles, conflict, and conniving characters. All three elements are central to the play’s major plotline; the plot focuses on the practice of primogeniture within a family of German aristocrats, and the conflict that arises between Count von Moor’s two sons, Karl and Franz, because of that practice. These three elements—setting, conflict, and characterization—work not only individually, but also in tandem. The most significant example of this cooperation is in the way that Schiller uses setting to influence a scene’s conflict or a character’s nature. Schiller uses setting in two specific ways: to both obscure and reveal pieces of information.
Specifically, spaces in The Robbers can be classified in one of two ways: as “nature disturbed,” or as “nature undisturbed.” A setting that can be described as “nature disturbed” is a man-made space, one that has trampled atop the space’s natural environment in order to claim and conquer. Settings that can be described as “nature undisturbed” are spaces left untrampled, those that have not been conquered by man. Furthermore, Schiller clearly uses these two distinct types to designate how information is going to be relayed to the reader. “Disturbed” places enable the creation of conflicts and allow characters to conceal their true natures. These settings obfuscate truths; such settings include the Moor castle and the tavern. “Undisturbed” spaces bring about conflict resolution and reveal characters’ true motivations. These settings force true nature to take its course; such settings include the forest and the garden. This paper will analyze both disturbed (the Moor castle) and undisturbed (the forest) settings in The Robbers and argue that they allow conflict and characterization to become either obscured or revealed, respectively.
The first setting Schiller utilizes is that of “nature disturbed.” Such spaces interrupt the natural environment; buildings are constructed, covering up what lies beneath. It is significant, then, that within these disturbed settings, nothing is as it seems. The plot is muddied by the creation of surprising or understated conflicts, and characters are able to mask their true intentions. Actions in disturbed settings are unnatural, just as the disruption of the environment is unnatural. Of these disturbed places, the most prominent is the Moor castle. An example of conflict and characterization being influenced by a disturbed setting is hosted in the Moor castle at the very beginning of the play. Act I, Scene I, the reader’s first introduction to the plot and to the characters, begins within the castle’s gloomy walls.
We are introduced to Count Moor and his youngest son Franz, both of whom are distraught. Franz explains that he has received a letter from one of the spies that watches over his brother Karl. He goes on to tell his father that Karl has committed several unforgiveable acts while abroad: “I will spare you—‘he has been declare a wanted man, his victims are crying out for satisfaction, a price has been put on his head…” (Schiller 27). Franz seems earnest in his shock. We see him as a necessary evil, as a character that must show his father how Karl has changed, no matter how unpleasant. Franz then attempts to convince his father that Karl’s nature has soured by stating, “…and now, father, look! the fiery spirit has grown, has burgeoned, has brought forth glorious fruit. See how this frankness has so neatly turned to insolence, see how this tenderness coos for any coquette…” (28). Franz’s argument, tearfully rendered, convinces Old Moor to disinherit Karl. Though Count Moor’s decision seems harsh, we are still led to believe that Franz is telling the truth.
It is not until the end of the scene that we discover that Franz is a liar and a manipulator. It seems that Franz concocted the entire story for two reasons: out of spite and to control the Moor fortune. Like the many rooms and passageways of the castle, Franz’s motivations are secretive and complex. He seems to hate both his father and his brother and is able to conceal this hate easily. It is not until Old Moor leaves that Franz mutters, “Console yourself, old man, you will never clasp him to that bosom, the way to it is firmly barricaded to him, as heaven is to hell” (32). No one suspects his true nature, or his part as the puppet-master behind Karl’s demise. Franz can hide his true nature from his father and enact his plot; therefore, both conflict and characterization have been influenced by the disturbed setting. It is the disrupted nature of the setting that emphasizes Franz’s deceit, because the castle’s disruption of the earth mirrors Franz and his disruption of the natural order of the family’s primogenitor policy.
The second type of setting that can be distinguished is “nature undisturbed.” These places are untouched by humans and continue to develop naturally. Flora and fauna are abundant, and all of that unchecked growth influences Schiller’s characters and conflicts. In undisturbed settings, conflicts (that were formed in disturbed spaces) are often resolved and characters’ true selves are revealed to the rest of the cast. The openness and vulnerability of the undisrupted environment forces those that occupy it to become as equally vulnerable. Of these undisturbed settings, the most significant is the forest (both of Bohemia and of the Moor estate). Forests often represent man’s escape from the conventions of society. In the case of The Robbers, it certainly symbolizes an escape, but rather than society, it is an escape from artifice. There are two forests acting as undisturbed settings in the play, so we shall examine an example from each.
The first forest, the one “of Bohemia,” is the host to a significant example of how undisturbed spaces affect characterization. This forest is where Karl and his newfound band of robbers take refuge after some of their members were caught by a nearby town’s authorities. Up until this time (Act II, Scene III), we have not seen the band of robbers in action; they had simply been men who wanted to find fame and fortune. In this scene, however, the blinders for both the reader and the characters fall off. There are no sneaky asides from the men; we, along with the rest of the gang, learn more about each man’s true character.
For example, once Schufterle acclimates to the forest of Bohemia, he is no longer simply a comrade seeking money; he is no longer an inconsequential addition to the band of robbers. Instead, he is revealed to be cruel. In his own words he tells the others that the devil should take, “…women in childbed, and pregnant ones afraid of aborting under the gallows, and young wives who thought the hangman’s tricks might give them a shock…” (83). Not only is he nasty, but also malicious and sadistic. He uses his power to enforce his will upon the innocent. Sadistically, he recounts a moment from his past pillaging: “…and when I took a good look, what was it? A baby, lying there as right as rain under the table, and the table just about to catch fire—Poor little brute! I said, you’re freezing! and threw it into the flames…” (83). Freed from any previous supposition on our behalf, Schufterle’s true character is exposed to the rest of the gang, all within the wilds of the forest.
The second forest, the one surrounding the Moor castle, is the setting for the climax (and quick resolution) of several lines of conflict, like Old Moor’s imprisonment, Herrmann’s involvement in Franz’s schemes, Amalia’s heartbreak, and Karl’s love for his father and Amalia. The resolution of these subplots is the greatest example of how undisturbed settings affect conflict. In Act V, Scene II, we find out that Old Moor has been alive the entire time; he had been buried and locked away by Franz, who hoped his father would eventually starve to death. Kept alive only by the bread and water brought to him by the guilty servant Herrmann, Old Moor meets the disguised Karl in the forest; Amalia also crosses paths with the robbers.
Confronted by those he loves so dearly, Karl removes his disguise. Sickened by what he has become, of the murderous nature he had so easily adopted, Karl shouts, “Swoon then, Amalia!—Die, father! Die through me a third time!—These your rescuers are robbers and murderers! Your Karl is their captain!” (155). His father dies of shock, and then Karl kills Amalia after she begs him to end her suffering. The final conflict is resolved when Karl decides to leave the robber band and to turn himself in to the local authorities. He somberly states, “Oh, fool that I was, to suppose that I could make the world a fairer place through terror, and uphold the cause of justice through lawlessness” (159). Every loose end is tied neatly in this scene. Every conflict created earlier (in disturbed settings like the castle) is resolved. In the forest near the family estate, the Moor family drama takes its natural course.
The natural course, in the case of the brothers von Moor, can be examined through the lens of setting and how Schiller utilized space to influence conflict and characterization. In the beginning, Schiller introduced the most disturbed of locations—a dark and sinister castle—and the most disturbed of situations—a brother plotting against his brother. This setting, an example of nature being disrupted, created conflict and obscured a character’s thoughts/motivations. In the end, Schiller’s undisturbed forests freed all tensions. All conflicts are resolved, and characters revealed important truths. Therefore, it should be concluded that setting is used to affect the degree to which information regarding conflict and characterization is revealed. The setting can either give the reader more or give the reader less.
Works Cited
Schiller, Friedrich. The Robbers and Wallenstein. Penguin, 1979.
By Erin Looney
Eighteenth-century playwright Friedrich Schiller’s The Robbers is a drama rife with castles, conflict, and conniving characters. All three elements are central to the play’s major plotline; the plot focuses on the practice of primogeniture within a family of German aristocrats, and the conflict that arises between Count von Moor’s two sons, Karl and Franz, because of that practice. These three elements—setting, conflict, and characterization—work not only individually, but also in tandem. The most significant example of this cooperation is in the way that Schiller uses setting to influence a scene’s conflict or a character’s nature. Schiller uses setting in two specific ways: to both obscure and reveal pieces of information.
Specifically, spaces in The Robbers can be classified in one of two ways: as “nature disturbed,” or as “nature undisturbed.” A setting that can be described as “nature disturbed” is a man-made space, one that has trampled atop the space’s natural environment in order to claim and conquer. Settings that can be described as “nature undisturbed” are spaces left untrampled, those that have not been conquered by man. Furthermore, Schiller clearly uses these two distinct types to designate how information is going to be relayed to the reader. “Disturbed” places enable the creation of conflicts and allow characters to conceal their true natures. These settings obfuscate truths; such settings include the Moor castle and the tavern. “Undisturbed” spaces bring about conflict resolution and reveal characters’ true motivations. These settings force true nature to take its course; such settings include the forest and the garden. This paper will analyze both disturbed (the Moor castle) and undisturbed (the forest) settings in The Robbers and argue that they allow conflict and characterization to become either obscured or revealed, respectively.
The first setting Schiller utilizes is that of “nature disturbed.” Such spaces interrupt the natural environment; buildings are constructed, covering up what lies beneath. It is significant, then, that within these disturbed settings, nothing is as it seems. The plot is muddied by the creation of surprising or understated conflicts, and characters are able to mask their true intentions. Actions in disturbed settings are unnatural, just as the disruption of the environment is unnatural. Of these disturbed places, the most prominent is the Moor castle. An example of conflict and characterization being influenced by a disturbed setting is hosted in the Moor castle at the very beginning of the play. Act I, Scene I, the reader’s first introduction to the plot and to the characters, begins within the castle’s gloomy walls.
We are introduced to Count Moor and his youngest son Franz, both of whom are distraught. Franz explains that he has received a letter from one of the spies that watches over his brother Karl. He goes on to tell his father that Karl has committed several unforgiveable acts while abroad: “I will spare you—‘he has been declare a wanted man, his victims are crying out for satisfaction, a price has been put on his head…” (Schiller 27). Franz seems earnest in his shock. We see him as a necessary evil, as a character that must show his father how Karl has changed, no matter how unpleasant. Franz then attempts to convince his father that Karl’s nature has soured by stating, “…and now, father, look! the fiery spirit has grown, has burgeoned, has brought forth glorious fruit. See how this frankness has so neatly turned to insolence, see how this tenderness coos for any coquette…” (28). Franz’s argument, tearfully rendered, convinces Old Moor to disinherit Karl. Though Count Moor’s decision seems harsh, we are still led to believe that Franz is telling the truth.
It is not until the end of the scene that we discover that Franz is a liar and a manipulator. It seems that Franz concocted the entire story for two reasons: out of spite and to control the Moor fortune. Like the many rooms and passageways of the castle, Franz’s motivations are secretive and complex. He seems to hate both his father and his brother and is able to conceal this hate easily. It is not until Old Moor leaves that Franz mutters, “Console yourself, old man, you will never clasp him to that bosom, the way to it is firmly barricaded to him, as heaven is to hell” (32). No one suspects his true nature, or his part as the puppet-master behind Karl’s demise. Franz can hide his true nature from his father and enact his plot; therefore, both conflict and characterization have been influenced by the disturbed setting. It is the disrupted nature of the setting that emphasizes Franz’s deceit, because the castle’s disruption of the earth mirrors Franz and his disruption of the natural order of the family’s primogenitor policy.
The second type of setting that can be distinguished is “nature undisturbed.” These places are untouched by humans and continue to develop naturally. Flora and fauna are abundant, and all of that unchecked growth influences Schiller’s characters and conflicts. In undisturbed settings, conflicts (that were formed in disturbed spaces) are often resolved and characters’ true selves are revealed to the rest of the cast. The openness and vulnerability of the undisrupted environment forces those that occupy it to become as equally vulnerable. Of these undisturbed settings, the most significant is the forest (both of Bohemia and of the Moor estate). Forests often represent man’s escape from the conventions of society. In the case of The Robbers, it certainly symbolizes an escape, but rather than society, it is an escape from artifice. There are two forests acting as undisturbed settings in the play, so we shall examine an example from each.
The first forest, the one “of Bohemia,” is the host to a significant example of how undisturbed spaces affect characterization. This forest is where Karl and his newfound band of robbers take refuge after some of their members were caught by a nearby town’s authorities. Up until this time (Act II, Scene III), we have not seen the band of robbers in action; they had simply been men who wanted to find fame and fortune. In this scene, however, the blinders for both the reader and the characters fall off. There are no sneaky asides from the men; we, along with the rest of the gang, learn more about each man’s true character.
For example, once Schufterle acclimates to the forest of Bohemia, he is no longer simply a comrade seeking money; he is no longer an inconsequential addition to the band of robbers. Instead, he is revealed to be cruel. In his own words he tells the others that the devil should take, “…women in childbed, and pregnant ones afraid of aborting under the gallows, and young wives who thought the hangman’s tricks might give them a shock…” (83). Not only is he nasty, but also malicious and sadistic. He uses his power to enforce his will upon the innocent. Sadistically, he recounts a moment from his past pillaging: “…and when I took a good look, what was it? A baby, lying there as right as rain under the table, and the table just about to catch fire—Poor little brute! I said, you’re freezing! and threw it into the flames…” (83). Freed from any previous supposition on our behalf, Schufterle’s true character is exposed to the rest of the gang, all within the wilds of the forest.
The second forest, the one surrounding the Moor castle, is the setting for the climax (and quick resolution) of several lines of conflict, like Old Moor’s imprisonment, Herrmann’s involvement in Franz’s schemes, Amalia’s heartbreak, and Karl’s love for his father and Amalia. The resolution of these subplots is the greatest example of how undisturbed settings affect conflict. In Act V, Scene II, we find out that Old Moor has been alive the entire time; he had been buried and locked away by Franz, who hoped his father would eventually starve to death. Kept alive only by the bread and water brought to him by the guilty servant Herrmann, Old Moor meets the disguised Karl in the forest; Amalia also crosses paths with the robbers.
Confronted by those he loves so dearly, Karl removes his disguise. Sickened by what he has become, of the murderous nature he had so easily adopted, Karl shouts, “Swoon then, Amalia!—Die, father! Die through me a third time!—These your rescuers are robbers and murderers! Your Karl is their captain!” (155). His father dies of shock, and then Karl kills Amalia after she begs him to end her suffering. The final conflict is resolved when Karl decides to leave the robber band and to turn himself in to the local authorities. He somberly states, “Oh, fool that I was, to suppose that I could make the world a fairer place through terror, and uphold the cause of justice through lawlessness” (159). Every loose end is tied neatly in this scene. Every conflict created earlier (in disturbed settings like the castle) is resolved. In the forest near the family estate, the Moor family drama takes its natural course.
The natural course, in the case of the brothers von Moor, can be examined through the lens of setting and how Schiller utilized space to influence conflict and characterization. In the beginning, Schiller introduced the most disturbed of locations—a dark and sinister castle—and the most disturbed of situations—a brother plotting against his brother. This setting, an example of nature being disrupted, created conflict and obscured a character’s thoughts/motivations. In the end, Schiller’s undisturbed forests freed all tensions. All conflicts are resolved, and characters revealed important truths. Therefore, it should be concluded that setting is used to affect the degree to which information regarding conflict and characterization is revealed. The setting can either give the reader more or give the reader less.
Works Cited
Schiller, Friedrich. The Robbers and Wallenstein. Penguin, 1979.