There have been many excellent interpretations of Schiller's Die Räuber, beginning with Benno von Wiese's chapter in his Schiller up to the 1998 essay by Hans-Richard Brittnacher. Jaimey Fisher in an article published in the Goethe Yearbook in 2003 raises several issues that relate to my reading of the play. I will address these issues below. In general I agree with Karl S. Guthke's assessment of Karl Moor as being driven by what the other robbers call “Groβ-Mann-Sucht” (titanic ambition), that the negative aspects of his character prevail over the positive ones, and that his final sacrifice does not redeem him. Guthke's careful and thorough discussion of the roles of both Karl and Franz is the best interpretation of the play I know. I also want to mention Theodore Ziolkowski's perceptive statement about Schiller's tragic characters in general: “an individual, be he ever so noble,cannot with impunity offend the accepted norm:the collective anxiety, aroused by the spectacle of the hero's nearly successful defiance, is met and put to rest by his defeat.” Since Guthke and Brittnacher review the most important Räuber interpretations, I will refer to them only if I have a specific comment.

A close reading of Die Räuber shows the importance of both revenge and sacrifice in the complicated relationship among the four principle characters, old Moor, his two sons Karl and Franz, and Amalia. Such a reading reveals aspects of the text that have so far not been explored, such as an accurate understanding of why the report of Karl's supposedly heroic death is said to be a revenge on his father.