Perhaps the interpretive focus should not, as some
scholarship suggests, rest so heavily on the incest of
Gregorius’ parents, and on his own incest with his
mother—for these acts, due to mitigating circumstances,
seem pardonable to both medieval and modern think-
ing—or even on his own superbia (pride) at leaving the
monastic world, but rather on the journey that Gregorius
undertakes, both physically and spiritually, on the path
that is mentioned both in the prologue and toward the
end of the tale, when Gregorius seeks to do penance in
the wilderness. This path may be seen as the path we
all take in life.
(Like Erec early on,) the knightly Gregorius leads an
exemplary life, an indication that Gregorius is not an
anti-chivalric work. He falls, as Erec does, but differ-
ently, and, like Erec, he must come to an understanding
of what has happened to him. He takes the initiative,
directs his mother’s actions, and sets out to do penance,
for, after all, as the prologue and ending make clear,
none is so stricken with sin that he cannot rise again,
cleansed, and attain grace.
Heinrich von Aue, the protagonist in Poor Heinrich,
like Erec and Gregorius, has reached what appears to
be the pinnacle of success and happiness, only to fall.
In his case, leprosy, which must be seen as a curse from
God, strikes him down. Unlike Erec and Gregorius,
Heinrich, at the beginning of the story, does not have
to set out on a path to attain his goal; he has already
reached it. Because of the narrator’s praise of Heinrich,
readers may wonder initially what brought about the
knight’s fall, but the narrator’s comparison of Heinrich
with Absalom and the many repetitions of the adjective
“worldly” reveal that hubris and the pursuit of worldly
things bring about Heinrich’s predicament. From the
onset of Heinrich’s leprosy till the change “in his old
way of thinking,” he takes a number of positive steps,
but he also missteps, and readers must determine if or
why Heinrich deserves the salvation granted to him at
the end of the story.
When Heinrich disposes of much of his wordly goods
and moves in with the family of one of his tenants,
Hartmann introduces his most controversial character,
a girl of eight who, for three years, rarely departs from
her affl icted master’s side. Heinrich ends up calling her
his “bride,” and she ultimately agrees to sacrifi ce herself
for him, for she has learned that only the blood of a
willing virgin can save him. The controversy revolves
around her motivations: is she selfl ess or selfi sh? Is her
willingness to sacrifi ce herself only an arrogant pursuit
of salvation? Or is she motivated out of love for her
parents and for Heinrich? After all, since the pursuit of
salvation recurs in Hartmann’s works, and, since salva-
tion was a teaching of the Church, can she be faulted
for pursuing what appears to her, a girl without means,
as the only road to salvation?
The fairy-tale ending of the story (his healing), in ad-
dition to the girl’s virtual disappearance from the action,
and the couple’s ultimate salvation leave some readers
dissatisfi ed. Has Heinrich actually earned his happiness?
Do his actions at the end reveal a real change of heart?
Not for this reason alone does Poor Heinrich remain the
most controversial of Hartmann’s major works. Where
it fi ts in the chronology of Hartmann’s work is also
uncertain. It seems to mitigate, with its happy ending,
the somberness of Gregorius, and point ahead to Iwein,
Hartmann’s return to the Arthurian theme.
The large number of manuscripts and fragments of
Iwein, its being most often mentioned among Hartmann’s
work by contemporary writers, and the many depictions
of scenes from it in frescoes and tapestries, all point to
its popularity. As with Erec, Hartmann based Iwein on
a work by Chrétien de Troyes, Yvain: Le Chevalier au
lion, and, as in Erec, Hartmann greatly expanded upon
the French original, by about twenty percent; 8,166 lines
versus 6,818. Nevertheless, in Iwein, Hartmann followed
Chrétien’s plot line more closely adding mainly dialogue
and authorial refl ection.
The theme in Iwein, as in Erec, is the reconciliation
of individual actions and individual love with chival-
ric ideals and a higher, ethical love. Like Erec, Iwein
undergoes a series of adventures before and after his
marriage to Laudine. Some critics have questioned
Iwein’s behavior when he kills Ascalon, Laudine’s
husband; others have criticized the later adventures as
being too inconsequential to fi t in the overall structure
of the epic. But even more than with Erec, Hartmann
juxtaposes courtly society with one man’s actions, and
what is a more requisite component of chivalric society
than adventures and quests?
Hartmann treats the court of King Arthur in Iwein
differently than he presented it in Erec. In the earlier
work he toned down or eliminated much of Chrétien’s
criticism of the court, but in Iwein the court not only
plays a more essential role, but the reader gets glimpses
of a courtly society where all is not well. This change
in tone could be due to an older Hartmann’s lifelong
experience at court, but whatever the reason, the court’s
fl aws underline the ethical and moral perfectibility of
the individual. From Erec via Gregorius and Heinrich
and fi nally to Iwein, this is the thread that connects
Hartmann’s major works, for, as with many great writ-
ers, Hartmann had an ethical ideal and set out to show
how it might be attained.
See also Chrétien de Troyes;
Gottfried von StraßburgFurther Reading
Bühne, Sheema Zeeban, trans. Gregorius. New York: Ungar,
1966.HARTMANN VON AUE