1. In the Poetics, Aristotle says that in tragedy the protagonist’s “fall” is brought about not by any terrible defect of character or any overtly vicious act, but rather by some critical “error of judgment.” Might we say that Karl [Charles] Moor’s fatal “error of judgment” is DESPAIR, about which Old Moor warns us already early in the play?
—A related question: Is despair (as we see it demonstrated, for instance, in the suicide of Judas) at heart a gesture of ego that specifically rejects the strength and healing influence of LOVE?
2. What significance does the parable of the Prodigal Son have for The Robbers? In what ways are the two stories similar? In what ways are the different?
3. Can Charles Moor, who intentionally and knowingly commits evil deeds, really be considered a hero? And why does he continually do these negative things?
4. Why does Charles Moor kill Amelia? What would you say is the significance of this act?
5. How do Charles Moor’s responses to his dog being injured indicate his state of mind and (perhaps) that of students of his time?
6. Does Charles Moor’s behavior demonstrate a revolutionary attitude, or simply an irresponsible – or even an overtly malevolent – one?
7. In what ways does Charles Moor exert himself as a creator; that is, what “creative” aspects do we see in his personality?
8. What is it in Karl [Charles] Moor that causes such jealousy in his rivals (Francis and Spiegelberg)? Is Charles ever aware of this antagonism and, if so, what prompts him finally to do something about it? Can we say that Charles is somewhat like Hamlet and can only take action at the last minute? Or is he simply so wrapped up in himself and his own thoughts that he fails to notice (or understand) what goes on around him?
9. In what ways is Charles Moor similar to Werther? In what ways is Francis Moor similar to Werther? In what ways are Amelia and Lotte similar? In what ways are they different?
10. How would you explain why Amelia wants to kill Francis?
11. Explain the conflict between Charles and Hermann. How does Amelia deal with the struggle between them, and why does she behave as she does?
12. At one point early on, Francis Moor says, “Man’s natural rights are equal; claim is met by claim, effort by effort, and force by force — right is with the strongest — the limits of our power constitute our laws.”
A little bit later, Charles Moor says, “Am I to squeeze my body into stays and straitlace my will in the trammels of law? What might have risen to an eagle’s flight has been reduced to a snail’s pace by law. Never yet has law formed a great man; ‘tis liberty that breeds giants and heroes.”
—What is each man’s view of the nature and function of law? In what ways are their views similar? In what ways are the different? And what do you think Charles means by “liberty”?
13. Early in the play Francis reveals himself to the audience as the “evil brother.” He says that men’s natural rights are equal, and adds that “it is true there are certain recognized conventions which men have devised to keep up what is called the social contract.” The allusion to Rousseau is obviously intentional. Compare and contrast Rousseau’s and Francis Moor’s views on this issue.
14. In Francis’ final speech (IV, ii), Francis says,
A father quaffs perhaps a bottle of wine more than ordinary--he is in a certain mood--the result is a human being, the last thing that was thought of in the affair. Well, I, too, am in a certain mood,--and the result is that a human being perishes; and surely there is more reason and purpose in this than there was in his production. If the birth of a man is the result of an animal paroxysm, who should take it into his head to attach any importance to his birth?
In contrast, Father Moser states later (V, i),
Now do you really think that the Almighty will suffer a worm like you to play the tyrant in his world and to reverse all his ordinances? Do you think the nine hundred and ninety-nine were only created to be destroyed, only to serve as puppets in your diabolical game?
How does each of these men appear to feel about the sanctity of human life? Does one have to believe in a God in order to appreciate the sanctity of human life? According to Francis’s reasoning, is murder wrong, or is it an option which a reasoning being can choose with some ethical justification?
—Which is more irresponsible, the thoughtless conception (or engendering) of a human being while one is drunk, or the deliberate destruction of a human being while one is sober?
15. Consider the difference between DRAMA (i.e., the text as literature) and THEATRE (i.e., the text realized in time and space, as a performance). Think about how The Robbers might be staged (you might even “cast” the characters and devise a set). What would be very different about a stage performance, as opposed to the text as a “reading experience”? Think about both the nature of the work itself and its impact upon an audience in either situation.
16. To modern readers – and perhaps to some of Schiller’s contemporaries – the characters of Amelia and Old Moor seem almost too naive, too gullible, to be believable. For instance, isn’t their easy acceptance of Francis’ false information illogical and unrealistic? Isn’t the entire situation actually ridiculous?
—This is a tricky question (though not a trick question), for the play was immensely popular in its time, and was taken very seriously indeed by audiences at all levels of intellectual and social sophistication. How can we account for the apparent discrepancies?