A Survey of Critical Commentary on Gottfried's Tristan
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received 68-2973 DICKERSON, Jr., Harold Douglas, 1933- A SURVEY OF CRITICAL COMMENTARY ON GOTTFRIED'S TRISTAN. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1967 Language and Literature, modern University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan A SURVEY OP CRITICAL COMMENTARY ON GOTTFRIED»S TRISTAN DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Harold Douglas Dickerson, Jr., B.A., A.M. The Ohio State University 1 9 6 7 Approved by '<c$(huai .ser Department of German ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In these days when we hear much debate on the value of doctoral dissertations* It gives me pleasure to say that for me It has been a worthwhile experience* and for reasons other than just my Interest In the topic and the work in volved* The value to me of this endeavor I owe entirely to my adviser* Professor Wolfgang Fleischhauer, who* often at great inconvenience to himself* sat with me for many hours smoothing out the difficulties in my manuscript* It was his knowledge* understanding and above all his friendship that made the writing of this dissertation a valid expe rience. What more can a student expect from a teacher and friend? I should also like to express my sincere thanks to Professor Dieter Cunz who* as departmental chairman* had many words of encouragement and always kept me Informed on dates* deadlines and procedure* to Professors Oskar Seidlin and Hugo Bekker who* as members of the reading committee* made many helpful suggestions and to whom* as a former student* I owe a debt of gratitude; and finally to my wife Sandra* who patiently and without complaint did all of the typing and saw me through this dissertation from the begin ning to the end* ii VITA October 1 9 , 1933 Born - Boston, Massachusetts 1 9 6 1 ...... B.A., University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 1961-1962 . Teaching Fellow, Department of German, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 1 962 •••••• M.A., University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 1962-196^ . • Teaching Assistant, Department of German, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1 9 6 5 -1 9 6 7 . • • Instructor, Department of Modem Languages, Capital University, Columbus, Ohio FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: German Studies In Philology. Professors Wolfgang Fleischhauer and Ulrich Groenke Studies In German Literature, Professors Hugo Bekker, Dieter Cuns, Peter Heller, Charles W. Hoffmann, Walter Naumann, Albrecht SchSne, Oskar Seidlin, Hermann J» Welgand, Wolfgang Wittkowskl ill CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS....................... 11 VITA ............................................ ill INTRODUCTION .................................. 1 Chapter I* THE MINNEGROTTE......................... £ The Mlnnegrotte and Mysticism The Mlnnegrotte as a Traditional Motif The Mlnnegrotte as a Poetic Creation The Mlnnegro tte and Alchemy II. THE PROLOGUE ........................... 6I4. III. T R I S T A N M I N N E ............................. 1 0 1 Minne as an Absolute Tristanmlnne and Courtly Society Trlstanminne as Fated Love Tristan-love and Christianity Miscellaneous CONCLUSION ......................... 173 NOTES ...................................... 17 8 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................... 2l+2 iv INTRODUCTION While in the centuries after Its composition Gottfried1* Tristan was not entirely forgotten, real scholarly interest did not focus upon the poem until the beginning of the nineteenth century* It was Karl L&chmann, the great philologist of that time, who first concerned himself with the poem*'*' The early literature showed more interest in Stoffgeschlchte and the origins of the poem than in its interpretation* As Gottfried Weber points out, the few attempts at interpretation were limited to "einerselts die Hochsch&tzung und das Lob von Gottfrieds Kunat, der Asthetischen Seite seines Werkea, andererselts die Abwertung lm Gehaltllohen auf Grund der vermelntllohen Unslttllohkeit, die Verwerfung der ethlschen Seite*1,2 In the third and fourth decades of the twentieth century, however, scholarly interest shifted from the purely historical and philological to the religious and metaphysical approach* As this dissertation will show, the years 1925 to 19^3 were perhaps the most decisive in Gottfried scholarship* In these years we find a definite break with the traditional historical approach to the epic* The meaning of the poem Itself rather than the saga and its development Is now the center of Interest* Truly revolutionary and most stimulating for further research was a new Insight: the impact of mysticism and its ideas on the epic* Most critics, in fact, see Gottfried’s poem no longer rooted in ethical and moral philosophy but in religious and metaphysical concerns* Every generation, it seems, must find its own way to an understending of Tristan* The earlier scholars had limited themselves to philological questions and to prais ing the artistry and style of Gottfried’s language* And, except for studies concerned with the history and develop ment of the Tristan-story* the critics in their interpre tations failed to take note of European literature outside of Germany* Recent Trlstan-literature, on the other hand, is characterised by an awareness that Gottfried’s Tristan is deeply rooted in the tradition of medieval European literature and that it was strongly influenced by Romance end Latin poetry* It is this recent critical literature, with all of its contradictory and controversial points of view, that forms the subject of this dissertation* Since the mid-twenties, so much research has been done on Gottfried’s Tristan that a survey seems justified* Ada M« KLett, in her book Der Streitum ’’Faust XI” seit 1 9 0 0 (Jena, 1 9 3 9 ) has set a precedent for this type of survey, and this work has, to a certain extent, served as a model for this dissertation* While she, however, deals briefly--perhaps too briefly--with twenty relevant topics in the second part of Fauat. I have restricted myself to three— the lovers1 grotto, the prologue and Tristan-love— and have attempted to discuss them In considerable detail* To be sure, there are many questions concerning other themes and problems of the epic yet to be answered* But owing to the bulk of secondary material that has appeared in recent years, I feel this restriction is warranted and that a detailed analysis of these three topics will be to anyone interested in the results of recent Tpistan-research more helpful than a cursory treatment of many* The method of this survey follows roughly that of Miss KLett’s Faust-commentary. Under the chapter headings mentioned above, I have established subheadings under which are arranged chronologically the various points of view* These I have discussed article by article and author by author* In the text I have presented the salient features of each opinion, reserving the details and finer points for the footnotes* There are many such footnotes and some are lengthy* In my opinion, however, their abundance and lengthlness Is justified* For in them the student of Gottfried's poem will find information helpful for a more thorough understanding of certain complex argu ments discussed in the text* This dissertation presents a survey of critical literature of the last forty years* The breaking-off point la the latter part of 1 9 6 5 * Studies which have appeared since then are referred to and included in the notes and bibliography* I should also point out that questions of textual criticism and linguistic explanations of individual words and phrases* unless they throw light on the Interpretation of the whole* have been relegated to the background in favor of commentaries deallng--if I may use a Berman expression— -with the Innere Wesenserkenntnia of the poem* CHAPTER I THE MINNEGROTTE The Interpretations of the Mlnnegrotte in the nineteenth century were vague; and the situation in the first decades of the twentieth* despite the many contri butions that have been made* has hardly improved* The older critics (Janko* Scherer* Heinzel* StBckle* etc*) tended to oversimplify the problem and were content to attribute the fine poetry of this passage to Gottfried's so-called aesthetlcism* which for the older scholars was the most dominant characteristic of his poetic talent* Friedrich Vogt^ upset the established pattern when he com pared the grotto to the Heavenly City of the Book of Revelation* But it was Friedrich Ranke^ who in 1 9 2 5— to use the words of Herbert Kolb— was to bring about a "Coperaican change in Gottfried scholarship*" Gottfried's description of the grotto* according to Ranke* coincides with Thomas'* But certain elements— the keystone* the marble floor* the crystal bed* to name just a few— are the poet's own invention (p* 22). Also Gottfried's own is the interpretation he attributes to these new elements* The bronze door* for example * symbolizes fidelity; the bolt and lateh on the door rep resent discretion and chastity, and so on (p* 2 6)* That we are dealing here with allegory has, of course, been rec ognized* Gottfried has transposed the material Mlnnegrotte Into a spiritual one* Friedrich Vogt had pointed In this direction with his suggestion of the grotto's resemblance to the Heavenly City* But Ranke clearly demonstrates that Gottfried made use of a traditional type of allegory dating from the fourth century; namely, the symbolic Interpre tation of the medieval cathedral (p* 3 0)* In the thir teenth century such a comparison of the spiritual