...,.

 

 

 

....--

 

 

 

 

 

u

u”

 

u“.

 

 

 

 

 

 

-
_‘

 

If

DGANST TY

lllllluzllllilfllilllulllllln

753 6414

£03495?”

 

(
l
'
Uzi-BRARYW l

Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

THE PORTRAYAL 0F CONSTANTINE IN KONIG ROTHER %
IN LIGHT 0F AUDIENCE EXPECTATION f

 

presented by

Daniel J. Low

I
I
has been accepted towards fulfillment }
of the requirements for ' I

M . A . degree in German

 

 

 

 

 

Date November 10, 1989

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

PLACE ll RETURN BOX to remove We checkout item your teeord.
TO AVOID FINES ream on or baton die due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU le An Atflrmdive Action/Equel Opponunlty Imitation
Wanna-M

THE PORTRAYAL OF CONSTANTINE IN KONIG ROTHER
IN LIGHT OF AUDIENCE EXPECTATION

By

Daniel J. Low

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Linguistics and Germanic, Slavic, Asian and
African Languages

1989

ABSTRACT

THE PORTRAYAL OF CONSTANTINE IN KONIG ROTHER
IN LIGHT OF AUDIENCE EXPECTATION

By

Daniel J. Low

The depiction of the Greek king Constantine in the
twelfth century minstrel epic Konig Rother is decidedly
negative. Considering the Tengelinger audience for whom the
epic was written, it is probable that the figure of
Constantine has been tailored to conform to their views of
Byzantine rulers.

This analysis assumes that the medieval audience
understood itself as a homogenous unit and that its world
View would be reflected in literary texts written for it.
The expectations of the Tengelinger audience regarding
Byzantine rulers can be determined through an analysis of
literature from the period and events affecting political
life in Upper Bavaria.

These texts and events suggest that Rother’s audience
would have been negatively influenced by relationships
between Byzantium and the Western world. The portrayal of
Constantine as incompetent and morally inferior corresponds
to the views of Byzantine rulers that we can postulate for

the Tengelinger court.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . .

I. THE STORY, THE AUDIENCE, AND AUDIENCE EXPECTATION

A. Konig Rother: A Synopsis . . .
B. Place in Literary History . . .
C. Recent Scholarship . . . . . .
D. The Heidelberg Manuscript . . .

E. Audience and Audience Expectation

II. HISTORICAL CONTEXT AS SEEN THROUGH NON-LITERARY

SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A. Principal Historical Figures .
B. Historical Events and Sources
C. Patronage . . . . . . . . . .

III. ANALYSIS OF CONSTANTINE’S ROLE IN

A. Perspective: Family . . . . .
B. Perspective: Court . . . . .
C. Perspective: Rother/Dieterich
CONCLUSION O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
APPENDIX 0 O O O O O O O O O O O C O 0
LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . .

iii

KONIG ROTHER

iv

11
11
15
16
20
22

29
30
31
45

51
51
66
69
72
75

77

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 1. Map of Tengelinger Holdings (Urbanek 38) 47
Fig. 2. Example from the Heidelberg Manuscript . 75

iv

INTRODUCTION

The German minstrel epic Konig Rother was written

 

around 1160, most likely for the Bavarian noble family, the
Tengelingers, who held land in upper Bavaria near the
Austrian border. It is one of the few medieval German works
where the Byzantine capital of Constantinople provides the
setting for the majority of the plot. This study will focus
on the figure of the Greek king Constantine in the minstrel
epic Konig Rother and how a particular Bavarian audience’s
expectations regarding the Byzantine are brought to light
through the depiction of Constantine as leader. In the
epic, the audience is presented with a comparison of two
types of leadership: the Western style, represented by
Bother, with its fair and generous character and a concern
for a strong and positive relationship between lord and
vassals, and the Eastern style, represented by Constantine,
with its despotic character and a weak lord/vassal
relationship. Rother’s personal involvement in the action
allows for the comparison of the leadership qualities of the
two rulers. Other figures who help to clarify Constantine’s
depiction in Rother are Constantine’s daughter, who uses her
knowledge of Constantine’s vanity and her desirability as a

fitting wife for a western ruler to manipulate him, and

6
Constantine’s wife who has the role of commentator and
critic of Constantine’s actions.

The purpose of this thesis is to investigate the degree
to which the figure of Constantine fulfilled the
expectations of the Tengelinger audience concerning the
Greeks. This investigation will define both the reception
community for which the epic was written and the historical
context in which it was received by its audience. In his
essay "Zum Hochmittelalterlichen Literaturbegriff" Kaiser
defines reception community in this way:

Eine Kommunikationsgemeinschaft, so lieB sich in
erster Annaherung an die Sache feststellen, ist
der ffir mittelalterliche Literatur notwendige
Rahmen, in dem das literarische Werk in besonderer
"Wir-Intensitat" erfahren wird, ist der Rahmen,
dessen Verstandnisbedingungen ein Werk zur
Entfaltung seines authentischen Sinnpotentials
benotigt. Das heiBt: der kommunikative Sinn des
Werkes erschlieBt sich fiber die Kenntnis der
Verstandigungsbedingungen des jeweiligen
kommunikativen Rahmens. (418)
The method of interpretation suggested by Kaiser involves
viewing the epic as a reflection of the norms by which an
audience defines itself as a social unit; a reflection of
the audience’s expectations, which offer the audience both
points of identification within the plot and a guide to
social behavior. The medieval audience (reception

community), which Kaiser delineates, and the author’s

7
relationship to that audience differ in three aspects from
the modern audience and the author’s relationship to it
(403—406). First, the medieval audience was bound together
by a belief in a particular world order in which its members
understood themselves as part of a particular societal unit
whose norms had to be present in a literary work, if the
text was to have meaning. Second, since the production of
written texts was limited to fairly small regions in the
twelfth century, the author’s audience remained small and
homogenous. Because of this situation, the author was able
to familiarize himself with his audience’s understanding of
the world and itself. And finally, since almost all members
of the audience were illiterate, the epic would have been
transmitted orally. Oral transmission of a tale insured
that the epic would be accessible to the audience as a
whole. Kaiser suggests:
Wenn es denn richtig ist, daB
Kommunikationsgemeinschaften des Mittelalters
entscheidend durch soziale Gemeinsamkeiten
gebildet und strukturiert sind, und wenn es weiter
richtig ist, daB literarische Texte auf Wirkung in
diesen Kommunikationsgemeinschaften angelegt und
angewiesen sind, dann sollte der Philologie nicht
mehr dispensiert werden von der Aufgabe, mit Hilfe
der zfinftigen historischen Forschung den
kommunikativen Wirkungsbereich zu rekonstruieren,
den der Text anvisiert. Ohne seinen zugehorigen

gesellschalftlichen Resonanzraum bleibt der Text

8

stumm, oder er wird beliebig interpretierbar

(416).
Therefore, by reconstructing the social-historical context
of the audience envisioned by the author of Rother with the
help of non-literary sources, one can interpret the figure
of Constantine and his role in the epic based on
contemporary audience reception.

Using the approach to literary interpretation just
described, the critic must determine the nature of the
particular audience who would have heard Rother and what its
expectations would have been concerning the Greeks. The
epic itself provides clues as to the primary audience, its
interests, and its expectations regarding the Greeks. These
areas include an interest in the empire, its leaders and
their dealings with foreign powers; an interest in dynastic
conflicts involving territorial families; and finally, an
interest in the patron’s family name and the prominence of
fictitious members of the patron’s family in the epic. This
type of audience identification with the narration is
necessary to establish why the particular depiction of
Constantine would be acceptable to audiences at the
Tengelinger courts.

In order to clarify which historical accounts could
have influenced an audience’s expectations toward the Greeks
in the years before 1160, the following historical sources
will be used: 1) the works of Liudprand of Cremona, written
around 970, 2) the chronicles of Otto of Freising, completed

in their final form around the middle of the twelfth

9
century, 3) the "privilegium minus", written in 1156, 4) the
De Profectione of Otto of Deuil, written in 1148, and 5) the
chronicles of a Greek historian, Nicetas Choniates, written
sometime between 1204-1214. Imperial and ducal documents
will also form part of the historical evidence used to
support the arguments presented in this study. These non-
literary sources will illustrate the different types of
contacts between the Western and Greek worlds and how the
Greeks were perceived as a result of these contacts.
Knowledge of the perceptions of the historical writers will
help in evaluating whether Rother’s audience would have
found Constantine a believable representative of Greek
rulers or whether Constantine simply fit an ahistorical
literary cliché of the negative foreign ruler.

A literary critic’s interpretation of Constantine must
determine whether the king has characteristics which go
beyond those that simply portray him as Rother’s opposite.
Characters and the norms they embody were not chosen at
random, but rather to reflect a medieval audience’s beliefs
about itself, the world around it, and its own expectations
concerning that world (Kaiser 407-408). A medieval text not
only reflects historical reality, but it also concerns
itself with the teaching, transmission and legitimization of
social norms (Borst qtd. in JauB 329). Historical events
concerning encounters between representatives of the German-
Roman empire and the Byzantines, together with a knowledge
of the audience and its expectations concerning the

Byzantine empire, form the social-historical context within

10
which Konig Rother was written down and narrated. The study
will show that within this social-historical context the
negative depiction of Constantine, his daughter’s
desirability as a marriage partner, and the queen’s critique
of Constantine’s rule coincided with the audience
expectations concerning a typical Byzantine emperor, such as
Manuel I (1143-80), the role of a Byzantine emperor’s wife,
when she happens to be German as in the case of Manuel’s
wife Irene (Bertha of Sulzbach), and the desirability of a

Byzantine princess, such as Theodora Comnena (died 1183).

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

I. THE STORY, THE AUDIENCE, AND AUDIENCE EXPECTATION

A. K6nig_Rother: A Synopsis

A short synopsis of the main action of Konig Rother
follows and concentrates on the role that Constantine and
his court at Constantinople play in the epic.

The Roman king Rother resides at Bari and rules over 70
kings, their lands, and many vassals. He is as yet
unmarried and his vassals urge him to take a wife in order

to provide an heir to the throne, thereby securing their

 

rights to their land and ensuring a smooth transition of
power. Lupolt, the son of Berchter, Rother’s most trusted
advisor, suggests the Greek king Constantine’s daughter
because of her great beauty and noble birth. He and his
brother Erwin, along with a retinue of 12 knights, are sent
from Bari to Constantinople to win the daughter of
Constantine, the king of the Greeks. Lupolt knows that
others who have previously done the same have been killed.

The messengers are received courteously by Constantine
but when they ask for the hand of Constantine’s daughter in
the name of Rother, Constantine decides to imprison them.
Constantine’s refusal to grant Rother’s request is
criticized by the queen, who foresees nothing but trouble as
a result.

A year and a day pass. Rother, fearing the loss of his
men, heeds the advice of Berchter and calls together his
vassals to find a way to gain knowledge of their fate.

Instead of using force to gain information about his

11

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

4O

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

12
messengers, the council advises him to use trickery. Rother
disguises himself as a banished knight named Dieterich and
sets sail for Constantinople with a small company of
knights. Among his retinue are Berchter and a group of
giants under the leadership of Asprian. Before leaving
Bari, Rother names Amalger of Tengelingen regent until his
return.

When Dieterich and the other warriors arrive at the
court of Constantine they are greeted courteously by the
queen. Dieterich asks Constantine for sanctuary from
Rother. Fearing the ferocious giants in Dieterich’s
retinue, the king takes counsel with his relatives and asks
them what he should do about Dieterich’s arrival and his
request for sanctuary. Constantine’s counselors advise him
to welcome this errant knight because he could prove to be
an ally against Rother in case he came looking for his lost
messengers. Constantine agrees and informs Dieterich that
he may stay. Dieterich’s relationship with Constantine,
however, is tense. The giant Asprian continually puts
Constantine into uncomfortable situations. Constantine
finally buys Dieterich’s allegiance in order to secure a
promise of good behavior and service from him and his
fearsome retinue.

Arnold, a knight who fled his lands because of war, and
his men are in dire straights. A merchant directs them to
seek help from Dieterich, from whom they receive a large
amount of gold and weapons. Arnold visits the court of

Constantine after receiving Dieterich’s gifts. Upon hearing

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

13
of Dieterich’s great generosity, all the barons and counts
leave the court in order to pledge their service to
Dieterich. Dieterich generously provides them with gold and
silk.

Constantine’s daughter, intrigued by the stories of
Dieterich’s great wealth and generosity, attempts to meet
the visitor. She eventually succeeds in arranging a
rendezvous with Dieterich in her bedroom and Dieterich
informs her that he is Rother. With her help, Dieterich is
able to gain the release of his messengers from prison on a
three-day pass. Dieterich and his men are shocked at the
mistreatment the messengers have suffered. He brings them
to the domicile where he and his men are quartered and feeds
and clothes them, conveying to them that Rother has come for
them, before they are returned to their cells.

Dieterich gains the messenger’s ultimate freedom and a
wife by assisting in the defense of Constantinople against
the attack of Ymelot, king of the heathens. Dieterich
captures Ymelot and brings him to Constantine on the
battlefield. Dieterich tells Constantine that he will
return to the city in order to inform the queen and her
daughter that all is well. However, he cunningly informs
the queen and her daughter that all is lost and they must
flee with him. At the parting scene, Rother orders that
Constantine’s daughter and no one else be taken aboard the
ship. As soon as the daughter has been taken aboard, Rother
informs the queen that Constantine is alive and well.

Rother then boards the ship and he and Constantine’s

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

14
daughter wave goodby to a weeping queen, who has given her
blessing to them.

Rother returns to find his realm in disorder. Amalger
is dead and his son, Wolfrat, has been trying to defend
Rother’s interests as best he can. However, six rebellious
margraves want to put Hadamar on the throne. Rother leaves
his pregnant wife in Lupolt’s care and rides off with his
tired and weary knights, Wolfrat of Tengelingen and his army
among them, to bring his land to order.

In the meantime, Constantine, irritated by the fact
that he was outwitted by the wily Rother, sends a minstrel
disguised as a merchant to recover his daughter. A
victorious Rother returns to Bari only to discover that his
bride is missing. Berchter advises him to go to Greece with
a force of men to win back his wife. Lupolt, Wolfrat and
Berchter agree to return to their domains to gather men for
the mission to Constantinople. From the massive assembly of
knights, Rother chooses an army of 30,000 and with them sets
sail for Constantinople.

After Rother lands on Greek shores, he, Lupolt and
Berchter disguise themselves as pilgrims. Before they
depart for Constantinople, Wolfrat gives Rother a horn with
which to signal if they get into trouble. On their way to
Constantinople, they learn that Ymelot had escaped, returned
to Byzantium with a large army, and defeated Constantine.

To save his life, Constantine agreed to allow his daughter
to marry Ymelot’s son, Basilistius. Rother and his men

steal into the hall where Constantine’s daughter laments her

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

15
fate. Rother crawls under the tables in order to give his
bride a gold ring with his initials in it. The ring signals
Constantine’s daughter that Rother has come to win her back.

Rother is discovered, taken captive, and sentenced to be

hanged. As a noble, Rother is allowed to name the place of
his execution. He chooses the spot where he has left his
army. Arnold, hearing of Rother’s fate, launches an attack

against Ymelot and frees Rother. Then Rother gives Lupolt
the horn, and it is Lupold who signals Rother’s army to
advance. Ymelot’s army is decimated in the battle that
ensues. Rother returns to Bari with his wife, who bears him
a son named Pippin. Pippin will eventually marry Bertha and
father Charles the Great. After Rother’s son Pippin comes
of age, he and his wife retire to the life of the monastery
and the nunnery on the advice of the faithful Berchter.

B. Place in Literary History

The epic K6nig Rother has been categorized as a

 

minstrel epic. The other epics which make up the minstrel’s

canon, Herzog Ernst, Salman und Morolf, Orendel, and St.

Oswald, were written in the twelfth to the thirteenth

centuries. The coarseness of language, the use of ribald
humor, and the topic of the wooing expedition, make it easy

to discredit minstrel epics as crude and artistically

lacking. The epics deal with varying subject matter and the
tone is different in each work as well. The epics Kbnig

Rother and Herzog Ernst are more secular and concentrate on

adventure. The other three epics are more religious and

deal with topics concerning the crusades. It is for these

16

reasons that minstrel epics have been more or less left out
of serious discussion in literary circles.
C. Recent Scholarship

Although recent studies are still willing to group
minstrel epics together because of common motifs, the level
of language used, and curiosity about the East, these
studies also accentuate the individual character of Kdnig
Rother and the other minstrel epics. Studies done by
Christian Gellinek and Gudula Dinser deal specifically with
Rother on a structural level. Gellinek’s Studie zur
literarischen Deutung reconstructs the time, place, and
narrative structure of Rother to show that Rother was
composed as a unified work and not as a compilation of
several versions written by a series of interpolators.
Gellinek is also concerned with the poet in his capacity as
narrator, the poet’s knowledge of historical events which
were contemporary to the writing of Rother, and the identity
of the poet in light of his work. In discussing the
historical events contemporary to the writing of Rother,
Gellinek explores the references to Constantinople in the
text. For example, the marriage of Henry II and his
Byzantine wife Theodora Comnena in 1148 was associated with
the wooing expedition contained in Rother (synopsis 1-11).
Although Gellinek makes such connections, he does not apply
them to an analysis of Rother in any meaningful way.
Dinser’s study, Koharenz und Struktur: Textlinguistische
und erzahltechnische Unterguchungen von "Kbnig Rother", a

linguistic evaluation of the Rother text, suggests that not

17
only was the author of Rother concerned with producing a
tale that entertained his audience, but that he also had a
didactic intent. The author’s intent was to present the
audience with an emblematic figure of the ruler and a
description of the qualities that made him a good leader
(129). One of the most important qualities of Rother in the
epic was his ability to maintain a good relationship to his
vassals.

Rother’s place in literary history has been explored on
the basis of its depiction of the leader figure and how the
depiction of the ruler changes in the literature of the
twelfth century. Maria Dobozy’s study, Full Circle:

Kingship in the German Epic, concentrates on the change in

 

the representation of the leader figure in the minstrel

epics, the Alexanderlied, and the Rolandslied. She posits

 

that the king figure as found in the Alexanderlied is a
composite of "heroic traits" and "royal functions" (6). She
feels that the two roles were eventually split and portrayed
by separate characters. This split occurs gradually and is
portrayed at different stages in the minstrel epics. Though
heroic traits and royal functions are never rejoined in a
single character, the characters who possess these roles
will be portrayed as a functioning unit "in which the two-
king and hero-~fulfill the duties of governance together"
(6). The last step is typical of the later Arthurian epics.
Historical reality as represented in the work itself,
as well as the audience’s awareness of historical events, is

another area of consideration in the research of the last

18
thirty years. Zeitgeschichte und Dichtung im »K6nig'Bother«
is a study by Klaus Siegmund which deals with the historical
aspects of Rother. It is an example of how not to apply
historical data to literary works. Siegmund attempts to
connect the figure of Rother directly with the historical
figure of the German Emperor, Henry VI. He bases his
connection on common personality traits supposedly exhibited
by both Henry VI and Rother and also on the fact that Rother
and Henry are both rulers of the Roman Empire. Rother’s two
journeys to Byzantium are also cited by Siegmund as alluding
to the crusades of Frederick Barbarossa (1189/90) and to
Henry VI’s own crusade (1198).

The idea that the figure of Rother was based on the
historical personality of Henry IV and that Rother was
written in 1196 has been discarded by scholars for several
reasons. The relationship between a historical figure and a
literary figure is difficult to establish. What could be
said of Henry VI’s personality could also be said of
Frederick I; Frederick Barbarossa also took part in two
crusades (1147—48 and 1189-90). The accepted dates for the
Rother manuscripts (1160), which are based on a linguistic
analyses, do not allow for the late date of composition
suggested by Siegmund. He suggests that a member of the
Andechs family, who were friendly to the Staufer Henry VI,
was a patron of Rother. Siegmund attempts to justify a
later date by assuming that the author consciously assumed
an archaic form for his epic in order to allay negative

reactions of the Welf family to his tale, who were enemies

19
of the Andechs family (142). However such a claim is almost
impossible to support and borders on defense based on
speculative arguments. Siegmund’s study shows that one
cannot simply choose several historical events and then
force connections between those events and the medieval
text. It is likely that the author of a medieval text will
incorporate vague allusions to certain historical events in
order to lend his epic plausibility without seeking to
duplicate an event.

Two recent studies by Ferdinand Urbanek and Uwe Meves
seek to discover, using different methods, who the patron of
Rother was and the audience for which the epic was intended.
They use references from the text and historical evidence to
support their findings. Urbanek has done a study on the
patron of Rother entitled Kaiser, Grafen und Mazene im

»K6nig Rother«. He determines that references to the

 

Tengelinger family in Rother point to a powerful Bavarian
family which held power during the twelfth century. This
family was divided into three branches: Plaien, Peilstein,
and Burghausen. Urbanek feels that Conrad I of the
Peilstein would have been rich and powerful enough to be
considered the patron of Rother. Urbanek points out several
references in Rother which suggest that it was written with
this particular patron and his family in mind. An earlier
study by Meves entitled Studien zu KbnigiRotherl Herzog
Ernst und Grauer Rock (Grendel) also suggests that the same
families could have been the patrons of Rother. Meves also

suggests that the wooing expedition and the figures of

20
Rother and Constantine refer to actual historical events and
personalities. He suggests that their appearance in Rother
is a sign that the audience of the epic was interested in
these events and would have recognized them.
D. The Heidelberg Manuscript

The tale of Rother is contained in five manuscripts.
The Heidelberg (H) manuscript, Cod. Pal. germ. 390, contains
the most complete version of Rother; the four other
manuscripts (B,E,M,A) are fragments. The following summary
of pertinent information concerning the Heidelberg
manuscript is based on discussions found in the critical
editions of Rother which were prepared by Frings/Kuhnt and
Jan de Vries.

The Heidelberg Manuscript (H) was first found and
described by Adelung in 1796 as part of his research on old
German poems (Frings/Kuhnt (1922) 14—48).1 Adelung found
the manuscript in the Vatican among other old German poems
taken from the library at Heidelberg. The epic was listed
in the Vatican catalog with the heading Nr. 390 Cuiusdam
regis Constantini et Dieterici historia.

The manuscript was damaged by fire. Most of the pages
turned black and pages 31 and 212 were completely destroyed.
Parts of the first page and the reverse side of that page
(It, 1~18; IV, 40-76) as well as the last page (73", 5171-
5181), were damaged and unreadable in 1922 when Frings/Kuhnt

and De Vries published their critical editions. The 73

 

1 Adelung cited in Frings/Kuhnt (1922) 14.

21
pages of parchment are approximately 17 cm high and 11 cm
wide and at their discovery were enclosed in a pigskin
cover. On the backside of the cover is the title Poema in
laudem variorum principum. Under that, written in a later
hand, is the title Koenig ROTHER 12. Jahrh. Before and
after pages 1r and 73v are three protective pages. The
upper right-hand corner of the recto side of each page
contains a number in ink from 1-73. The manuscript contains
9 layers of 4 double pages. The text is framed between
horizontal lines, spaced at 5 1/2 mm intervals, and vertical
lines.2 Pages 1r to 71‘ and 8v have 24 lines; the other pages
have only 23 lines per page. One page is missing which can
be deduced from a comparison with the A manuscript. Judging
from the manuscript’s size, lack of initials, and
pagination, one must assume that the Heidelberg manuscript
was meant to be used, underscoring the close connections
among patron, text, and audience.

It has been generally accepted in the scholarship
concerning the origin of the manuscript that it was written
around 1160 by a cleric from the Rhineland (Meves 99,
Urbanek 18-21). How a manuscript containing a tale
venerating a Bavarian family came to be copied down in the
Rhineland has been a topic of discussion in several studies.
The scenario as to how the epic reached Bavaria, which seems
most plausible, has been suggested by Jan de Vries (35).

The oral tale of Rother came into existence in the Rhine

 

2 A copy of a page from the H manuscript is included in the
appendix.

22

area of Germany in a shorter version than the one contained

 

in the manuscript. The motifs were taken from a northern
source such as the Vilcinasaga. The tale travelled down the
Rhine carried by storytellers. Characters and motifs were

added with each performance depending on the audience and
the particular area where the tale was being performed.
Eventually the tale came to the southeastern region of
Bavaria; to the courts of the Tengelinger family. A
Bavarian cleric, whose patron was a member of the
Tengelinger family, was asked to write a version of the
tale, which would be entertaining and which would also
celebrate the family’s long history and position of strength
and power in Bavaria. The Tengelingers possessed land in
lower Austria, Bavaria, and later, by way of a marriage in
1130, in the Rhineland. The extant version of Rother
contained in the Heidelberg manuscript is possibly a copy of
the original Bavarian manuscript brought to the Rhineland by
a member of the Tengelinger family after they had become
established here in order to help keep family traditions
alive.
E. Audience and Audience Expectation

The text of manuscript H forms the basis for the
critical edition of Rother edited by Frings/Kuhnt which is
used as the source for the Middle High German quotes found
later in this study. Using the text of the H manuscript as
an approximate starting point, we will attempt to locate the
particular audience to which Rother was directed in time and

place. We will also theorize as to the makeup of the

23
audience to which Rother was directed and as to audience
expectations regarding the acceptable behavior for a ruler,
the liege lord - vassal relationship, the wooing expedition
and marriage, and Byzantium.
1. The Audience

In Rother, it is the vassals, those who are dependent
on Rother for their welfare, who take an active role in
sustaining the power of their king. All of the vassals ask
Rother to take a wife to secure their rights to their lands,
Erwin and Lupolt are responsible for making Rother’s request
for a bride, Amalger and Wolfrat protect Rother’s lands in
his absence, Lupolt protects his wife as Rother sets his
affairs straight after his return from Constantinople,
Arnold is responsible for rescuing him before he is hanged
by Ymelot. The importance of these vassals suggests that
the search for an audience should begin with an examination
of the figures who represent Rother’s vassals.

The Tengelingers are faithful vassals of Rother and are
given a prominent role in Rother. The family name is
mentioned ten times in the text (741, 2952, 3428, 3470,
3560, 3664, 4207, 4338, 4862, and 5024). Their bloodline is
extolled for producing many heroes:

Der was uon thendelinge.

Des : koningis amelgeres sune.

Izne quam van : eineme sinsin kunne.

Also manich ture wiigant (2953-56).

24
He (Wolfrat) was the lord of Tengeling/ King
Amalger’s son./Never from one line has come/ Such
a host of heroes fair.3
Individual family members also play a strategic role in the
plot. Amalger of Tengelingen rules in Rother’s absence.
Wolfrat, who is Amalger’s son, takes over after his father
dies and defends Rother’s kingdom against the usurper
Hadamar. He is made a knight as reward for his faithfulness
to Rother. Wolfrat is able to command 20,000 men (3560) in
order to help Rother reclaim his wife and he also provides
his men with handsome clothing (3558-78). The outfitting of
so many men is a sign that Wolfrat and his family were rich.
Wolfrat gives Rother his horn in order to call his army if
he gets into trouble on his second trip to Greece (3664-86).
Wolfrat’s fighting skills are praised and a description of
his personal qualities are given: "Riche : an ouer mude/Mit
wisdumis sine" (A rich yet not a haughty man,/And of a very
prudent mind; [4340-41]). The narrator goes on to say that:
"Der liz : ouch sime kunne./ Daz to imer uorsten namen :
hat./ Die wile daz dies werelt stat". (And so to his family
he left behind/ The right to bear a princely name/ As long
as this world does remain; [4342-44]). Wolfrat and Rother’s
other faithful vassals are well-rewarded by Rother after his
coronation in Aachen. Wolfrat receives Austria, Bohemia,

and Poland. Ten other counts receive the PleiBner Land and

the Sorbian Mark.

 

3 The English translations are taken from Lichtenstein.

25
2. Audience Expectations
The figure of the king in German literature during the
twelfth century is in transition according to Dobozy. Early
epics like the Alexanderlied portray a hero-king, that is, a
figure who exhibits the traits of both hero and ruler.
According to Dobozy, "Heroic action is individual action,
risking one’s own life and pitting one’s own strength and
wit against the opponent" (13). Royal actions are those
actions which help the ruler further the interests of the
common weal. Later epics, such as the Arthurian epics,
portray a king who is no longer capable of heroic action.
Brogsitter describes Arthur’s rule in this way:
... aus dem stolzen Kriegsherrn ist das whrdige
Oberhaupt der Ritterschaft geworden, der sich mehr
durch tadelfreies ritterliches Benehmen und die
einem Grandseigneur anstehende GroBzfigigkeit als
durch den langst nicht mehr nbtigen Beweis eigener
kampferischer Tapferkeit auszeichnet. Sein Hof
ist der Sammelpunkt aller edlen Ritter, und zu
seiner Tafelrunde gezahlt zu werden, bleibt das
hbchste Ziel. Von Chretien an handeln die
Arstusliteratur nicht mehr so sehr von Artus
selbst als vielmehr von den Heldentaten seiner
einzelnen Ritter, ffir die der stolze Hof Arthurs
und seiner Kbnigin Guenievre nur mehr den
Hintergrund abgibt. (43—44)
Dobozy interprets Rother as a leader who performs both

heroic and royal actions to varying degrees and therefore

in

am

26
she uses this character as an example of the transition from
one type of leadership to another (4). Rother’s efforts to
free his vassals qualify as heroic actions. However,
Rother’s heroic actions are balanced by a concern for his
vassals and for the affairs of state. In this dual role,
Rother is much like the figure of Alexander in the
Alexanderlied, meaning that the tale belongs to the middle
of the twelfth century.

The issue of the lord - vassal relationship is
important to Kbnig Rother because it is a subject with which
an audience in the 1160’s could identify, since the
audiences would have been familiar with a strict separation
of social classes. They understood themselves in terms of
either being a lord, a vassal, or an unfree servant. A good
relationship to the lord meant prosperity and rewards. A
bad relationship would involve loss of lands and social
rank. Hence, the relationship of both Constantine and
Rother to their vassals and the form which their respective
relationships take are presented.

’ confirms the

Bumke’s study on the term "ritter'
importance of the separation of the liege lord from the
vassals in the early literature of the twelfth century. In
his Studien zumgfiitterbegriff im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert
(9), Joachim Bumke points out that the literature in which
the term ritter was used came to define a certain social
class and reflected the social reality of the twelfth and

thirteenth centuries. Bumke shows how in the early twelfth

century the term ritter referred to soldiers in service of a

27
lord and then developed into a term denoting a particular
class whose membership was open to anyone, from farmer to
king. Men became knights in a ceremony where they were
presented a sword and where they promised to maintain
Christian virtues and to perform duties to gain the
attention of a woman of high regard. Bumke points out that
the term ritter, when used in its earlier sense to denote
service, could not be applied to a king (89). Bumke notes
that as long as Rother is king, he is not to be called
ritter; however, disguised as Dieterich and in service to
Constantine, Rother was designated as ritter by both Herlint
and Constantine (90-91). The importance of the vassals in
Rother and the clear separation of the ruler from his
vassals are both indications that the epic was directed at
an audience of the 1150’s or 60’s who were the vassals of a
powerful overlord.

The wooing expedition plays a central role in the epic.
Reasons for audience interest in marriage are more than
likely political. In his Studien zur Minne und Ehe in
Wolframs Parzival und Hartmanns Artusepik on the role of
marriage and its reflection in literature in the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries, Wiegand documents the primacy of
political motives in marriage contracts. Marriage was only
considered between partners of the same class, and all
marriages presented in the literature of the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries were between members of the aristocracy
(14-15). In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, marriage

had several functions: alliance formation between families

28
and kingdoms, a means of peacefully overcoming an enemy, and
a means of bringing two warring factions together (16-22).

All of these aspects are presented in Kbnig Rother.

 

The generic wooing expedition is individualized in
Rother so that a Byzantine princess is sought as the best
choice for Rother’s wife and that this marriage will produce
Charles the Great. Constantine’s daughter is both beautiful
and, more importantly for the time period under discussion,
a female member of the imperial Byzantine family. At this
time imperial politics between the west and east were
involved in resolving claims of the west to imperial
supremacy. Her marriage is difficult to arrange, which is a
typical motif in medieval literature, though, the difficulty
in this case might indicate the audience’s expectation that
a marriage alliance involving the Byzantines was also
difficult to arrange. The marriage of Rother and
Constantine’s daughter also suggests that an audience
considered marriage an expedient means of settling conflicts
and avoiding future confrontations with the Greeks. The
inclusion of Charles the Great indicates that the audience
thought highly of the rule of the Carolingians and would
expect their inclusion in order to show that the exemplary

rule of Rother had been carried on.

II.

W88

im'

re]

no:

at»

pc

II. HISTORICAL CONTEXT AS SEEN THROUGH NON-LITERARY SOURCES

The historical context in which the epic Kbnig Rother

 

was written is an important consideration when one wishes to
investigate audience reception of the epic. Of particular
relevance to this study of Constantine in Rother are those
non-literary sources that refer to the qualities and
abilities of Byzantine rulers, the relationship between the
vassal and his lord, the role of marriage in establishing
political alliances, and the German perception of Byzantium.
A summary of historical figures and particular historical
events which occurred during the period from approximately
1140 to 1160 and the reaction of the historians who recorded
those events will give the reader an impression of the types
of associations an audience might have made with regard to

events and figures depicted in the epic Kbnig Rother. The

 

summary also provides an indication of the audience
expectation with regard to the Greeks and their rulers
during the period under discussion.

After positing possible audience expectations regarding
the Greeks on the basis of non-literary sources, the next
step will be to determine the epic’s patron by using clues
provided by the text which were discussed in part I of this
study. Imperial and ducal documents and the study done by
Urbanek indicate that the patron of Rother was a member of
the Tengelinger family. By establishing connections between
the patron of Rother and the historical events occurring

from 1140 to 1160, it will be possible to say that the

29

30

patron of Rother would have had expectations similar to
those expressed by the chroniclers. Furthermore, one could
surmise that the patron’s expectations would also be those
of the larger audience to be found at the Tengelinger’s
court, if one keeps Kaiser’s comments on oral transmission
in mind, which were referred to in the Introduction.
A. Principal Historical Figures

The following political figures and familial
relationships are relevant to this study.

I. Staufer (Family dynasty in control of the German-Roman

 

empire)
Conrad III King of Germany (1137-1152)
Frederick I King of Germany (1152-1154)
Emperor (1154-1190)
II. Welf (Family dynasty in control of duchies of Bavaria
and Saxony)
Henry the Proud m Gertrud
Henry the Lion (1139-1195)
III. Babenberger (Family dynasty in control of the
margravate, later duchy of Austria)
Leopold III (father of Henry II), Margrave of Austria
(1095-1136)
w Agnes 2nd wife (daughter of the German
emperor Henry IV and widow of Duke
Frederick I, the German emperor Frederick
I’s father)
Leopold IV Margrave of Austria (1095-1141) and Duke of

Bavaria (1130-1141)

31
Henry II (half-brother of Conrad III, uncle of
Frederick I, nephew of Manuel I)
"Pfalzgraf" on the Rhine 1140
Margrave of Austria (1141-56)
Duke of Austria (1156-77)
Duke of Bavaria (1143-1156)
w Gertrud, lst wife (widow of Henry the Proud
and daughter of the German emperor Lothar
III)
m Theodora Comnena 2nd wife (niece of
the Byzantine emperor Manuel I)

IV. Byzantine Emperors

 

Nikephorus Phocas (963—969)

Jonathan II Comnenos (1118-1143)

Manuel I Comnenos (1143-1180) w Bertha of Sulzbach

(later called Irene)

B. Historical Events and Sources

The Liudprandi Legatio ad Imperatorem
ConstantinopolitanumpNicephorum_2hocam was written by
Liudprand of Cremona in the 970’s. It is a report of his
failed wooing mission to the court of Nicephorus Phocas on
behalf of Otto I (936-973) who was seeking to form a
marriage alliance with this particular Byzantine emperor.
The Legatio was written by an Italian in the tenth century
and copies of this report were available in Germany at that
time. According to Bauer and Rau, the oldest text north of
the alps, which is now lost, would have been found in Metz

(240). Archbishop Dieterich of Metz (965-977), a cousin of

32
Otto the Great, was reported to have been in Italy and was
interested in obtaining manuscripts (Becker 42). One of
those could have been the Liudprand codex, containing the
Legatio. From the tenth to the twelfth century, copies of
the Legatio could be found in monasteries surrounding Metz,
Trier, and the Austrian monasteries of Zwettl and
Klosterneuburg (Becker 42-46). Lhotsky points out that
Liudprand’s works were used by Magnus of Reichersberg, a
twelfth century historian (228-229). Otto of Freising was
also familiar with Liudprand’s work on the history of the

Longobards, which he mentions in his Gesta (477), and he

 

knew of Liudprand’s other works.

Historical information concerning the political
marriage of Manuel I Comnenos to Bertha of Sulzbach, which
took place in the year 1146, is recorded in Otto of

Freising’s Gesta Frederici seu rectius Cronica which was

 

completed in its entirety in the year 1160.4 The chronicle
deals with the waning years of the German king, Conrad III
and the early years of the German emperor, Frederick I.
Nicetas Choniates, a Greek historian, will also provide
information on this marriage. The passages dealing with
Manuel’s marriage to Bertha are contained in Nicetas’s
chronicle on the lives of Jonathan and Manuel Comnenos which
he wrote from 1204-1214, the years of his exile from

Constantinople (Grabler 11). The combination of the two

 

4 Otto of Freising completed two of the four books which make
up the Gesta by the end of the summer of 1158. Rahewin completed
the remaining two books.

33
sources gives a fairly complete View of this particular
marriage.

A discussion of specific events which took place on the
second crusade (1147-48) and were reported on by various
chroniclers is the next topic of discussion. Events, such
as such as the murder of an injured German noble at Antioch,
the flood in the plain of Choerobacchi, the difficulty in
finding food, and the journey of the German crusaders
through the mountains to Iconium, will be related and will
provide a better understanding of how the Greeks were
perceived in the eyes of the crusaders who passed through
Byzantium to reach the Holy Land. Tales told by the
returning crusaders would influence the way in which Greeks
were perceived in the German empire. Sources of information
concerning the second crusade are the De profectione
Ludovici VII in orientem written by Louis VII’s chaplain,
Odo of Deuil, in the summer of 1148; Nicetas Choniates’s
history of Jonathan and Manuel; and Otto’s Gesta.

The next historical event concerns the marriage of
Henry II, a Babenberger and half-brother of the emperor
Conrad III, and Theodora Comnena, niece of Manuel 1, in
1148. This marriage was used as leverage by Henry II in his
struggle against the Welf, Henry the Lion, who was seeking
to regain the duchy of Bavaria. It had been ruled by the
Welfs until 1139 at which time it was given to the
Babenberger family of Austria. The solution to this
dynastic dispute was the "Privilegium Minus" written and

witnessed in 1156. Other details about this event are

34
reported in Otto of Freising’s Gesta. The "Privilegium
Minus" marks the return of Bavaria to Henry the Lion and the
creation of the duchy of Austria. It also reflects the
conditions of Henry II’s marriage to Theodora, the Greek
princess.

The fifth and final event is described in Otto’s figsta
and concerns Frederick I and his dealings with the Greek
ambassadors of Manuel I in 1156. They had come in order to
renew an alliance with the German empire and to suggest a
marriage between Frederick and a Byzantine princess. They
were not well received because of the methods the Greeks
used to gain control of Apulia and Compania after the
destruction of Spoleto (1155) which had angered Frederick I.
1. Liudprand’s Report

In June of 968 Bishop Liudprand of Cremona was sent to
Constantinople to secure a political alliance with Byzantium
by arranging the marriage of Otto II. This was not
Liudprand’s first trip to Constantinople. In 949 he had
been sent by King Hugo of Italy to the court of Constantinus
Porphyrogenitus. There he learned Greek and was introduced
to the institutions and history of the Byzantines. However,
his mission to the court of Nicephorus Phocas on behalf of
Otto the Great was a failure. Liudprand and his men were
imprisoned and mistreated by their Greek captors. After his
release in January of 970, Liudprand had to present Otto
with an account of his failure. Several episodes taken from
this account should illustrate both Liudprand’s negative

feelings toward the Greek emperor, Nicephorus, and his

35
intention of fostering a negative perception of the Greeks
in the consciousness of his imperial audience.

Liudprand’s initial audience with Nicephorus was on 7
June 968 (Legatio 527). In his report, he gave his reader
both a physical description of the Byzantine emperor and an
assessment of the his character. According to Liudprand,
Nicephorus had an eccentric appearance: he was pygmy-like,
had the small eyes of a mole, he had hair which gave him the
appearance of a pig, and he had the coloring of an
Ethiopian. Liudprand comments that Nicephorus was "not the
kind you would want to meet in the middle of the night"
(527). And although Nicephorus wore a costly robe, it
appeared to be old and faded, had seen long use and had a
definite bad odor. Nicephorus’ speech was shameless, his
nature was comparable to that of a fox, and he was as filled
with lies and false oaths as Ulysses himself. One can see
that Liudprand goes to great lengths to make the idea of
dealing with Nicephorus seem impossible. This apparently
short, rotund man of disreputable character only makes
Liudprand appreciate his emperor all the more, a man for
whom he has only praise.

In the second example (Legatio 526), Liudprand tells
how he and his men were incarcerated in a building which was
open to all the elements and were mistreated by their
jailers. In their place of incarceration Liudprand reports
that he and the other members of his group had only the
marble floor to sleep on and rocks for pillows. They were

often ill and felt themselves close to dying. Liudprand

36

complains of never having any good wine, only salt water.
Liudprand remained in this house until his release in 970.

Nicephorus shows his lack of respect both for Liudprand
and for the West in general in the third example (Legatio
535). Here Liudprand explains that when he was asked to be
a guest at Nicephorus’s table, he was seated a great
distance from the emperor, rather than be placed in a
position of honor. During the same meal, as Liudprand was
answering Nicephorus’s questions concerning Otto’s actions
against the Greeks at Bari, Nicephorus interrupted him and
called him a liar (535). Nicephorus went on to say that
Otto’s knights knew nothing of riding, their armaments were
useless, their stomachs were their gods, and their courage
and bravery were nothing but the results of drunkenness
(535). Pompously Nicephorus asked the rhetorical question,
how would Otto be able to withstand an attack by Nicephorus,
an emperor with so many warriors, if Otto could not take a
small city such as Bari from the Byzantines (535).
Liudprand is depicting Nicephorus as a ruler, who shows no
respect for proper etiquette concerning diplomats.
Liudprand is also pointing out Nicephorus’s low opinion of
the power of the German emperor Otto and the ability of his
knights. By depicting Nicephorus in this light, Liudprand
intends to draw criticism away from himself, and put the
blame for the failure of his mission squarely on the
shoulders of the Greek emperor. Such vivid descriptions of
the appearance and actions of a Greek emperor would give

anyone who had heard about Liudprand’s mission to Byzantium

37
a negative impression of a Byzantine ruler and his court.
These impressions would persist in the German empire for
centuries.
2. The Marriage of Bertha of Sulzbach and Manuel I (1146)

In 1146 a political marriage was arranged between
Bertha, the sister of Conrad III’s wife, Gertrude, and
Manuel I, the son of the Greek emperor Jonathan Comnenos.

It was an attempt to renew the alliance between Byzantium
and the German Empire and thereby discourage incursions into
both empires by Roger II of Sicily. The ambassador sent to
arrange the wedding was the bishop Embricho of Wfirzburg. It
was celebrated during Epiphany of 1146 (7-12 January). This
marriage is found in the chronicles of both Nicetas
Choniates and Otto of Freising.

Nicetas Choniates, a Greek historian, writes that the
marriage was a successful one (Grabler 155). He describes
Bertha as being a woman of inner beauty, one who preferred
not wearing make-up. She was also uncompromising and
stubborn. Although these two factors kept the passionate
and wild Manuel at a distance, he treated his wife honorably
by giving her a decorative throne, beautiful clothes,
servants, everything an empress could desire.

Bertha remained in contact with the events in Germany.
In a report contained in Otto of Freising’s Gesta, he
describes an incident which took place at the Imperial Diet
held in Wfirzburg on 28 September 1157. It involved Greek
ambassadors who had come to present a request on behalf of

Bertha of Sulzbach, wife of emperor Manuel I, that Frederick

38
of Swabia be made a knight. However, the pompous way in
which the ambassadors greeted and spoke to him angered the
emperor Frederick I. He was prepared to reply to their
request in a way which would have gone against the rules of
propriety, however Otto does not relate what it was
Frederick had in mind. The ambassadors promised to change
their mode of speech and were allowed to make their request
which was granted (Gesta 405).

Irene (Bertha) died early in 1160 and Nicetas compares
Manuel’s loss to that of someone losing a part of
themselves. He had her laid to rest with pomp and
circumstance in the Pantokrator church built by his father,
Jonathan.

3. The Second Crusade

If the second crusade is mentioned in chronicles of the
West at all, it was usually described as a disaster. Both
the German and the French armies were defeated by the Turks.
However, the Turks had not been the only problem. There was
also the interference of the Byzantine emperor, Manuel 1.
Manuel was uncertain about the intentions of the crusaders.
Nicetas writes that Manuel thought that an unarmed group of
pilgrims accompanied by a large work force was to pass
through his realm. The work force was to clear and level a
path for the pilgrims. However, this was not the case. The
group that followed the pilgrims was armed and ready for
battle and plunder (Grabler 96). Another factor which
contributed to Manuel’s uneasiness was the attack by Roger

II of Sicily against the Byzantine empire, which occurred at

39
the same time. Manuel was not sure if he could withstand an
attack of an alliance of crusaders and Roger which could
have been a possibility when one considers the friendship
between the French and the Normans. Manuel’s mistrust lead
to many of the misfortunes suffered by the crusaders and
pilgrim masses.

The German crusaders’ early encounters with the Greeks
came during the march from the Greek border to Adrianople.
Stragglers from the German crusade army were killed by the
Greek army of Prosuch (Berry 46n16), which was sent to make
sure that the Germans kept to the path assigned to them and
that they did not forage for food or plunder the countryside
(Grabler 97). Odo of Deuil writes that the French crusaders
had more to fear from the rotting bodies of the Germans,
which were strewn along the path to Adrianople, than from
the armed Greeks who also followed them (Berry 47).

Nicetas reports that a relative of Conrad III fell ill
and was left in the guest house of a monastery in Adrianople
while the crusaders continued their march to Constantinople
(Grabler 98). Several Greeks, bent on plunder and booty,
attacked the guest house and set it ablaze, killing Conrad’s
relative and all others who were inside the guest house.
Conrad found out about the situation and sent Frederick of
Swabia (later emperor Frederick I) to take revenge.
Frederick had the monastery itself burned to the ground and
those responsible for the arson put to death.

On 7 September 1147 the crusaders camped in the plain

of Choerobacchi. As Otto of Freising reports, the waters of

40
the small river, the Melas, which ran through that
particular plain overflowed during the heavy rains on the
evening of that same day (Gesta 221). The crusader army
suffered the loss of both men and possessions. Nicetas
claims that Conrad asked himself if the elements and seasons
obeyed the will of the Greeks. This question is not as
trivial as it seems because of the heavy losses suffered by

the crusaders both from the weather and the Greeks (Grabler

90-100). The remnants of the German crusaders continued on
to Constantinople. Odo writes that Manuel had called for a
conference with Conrad. Conrad, however, did not wish to

enter the city and Manuel refused to leave it, so the two
men did not meet at that point (Berry 49). Thus the
tensions between the Greeks and the Germans were allowed to
build up.

Odo reports that the Germans crossed the Bosporus
without waiting for the French army, because Conrad was in a
rush to reach the Holy Land. At Nicaea the German crusaders

5 Conrad went toward Antioch via

split into two groups.
Iconium and his brother, Otto of Freising, continued along
the shore route toward the same city. Nicetas writes that
emperor Manuel was responsible for inciting the Turks
against the Germans (Grabler 102). Odo supports this

assumption with the report he heard from the German

messengers sent to Louis VII at their French army’s

 

5 Odo placed the area where the crusader army split in
Nicomedia, however, Berry feels that Nicaea would be the more
logical place geographically (50n28).

41
encampment beside a certain Nicene lake. Conrad’s
messengers informed the French king, Louis VII, and his men
of the German’s terrible defeat at the hands of the Turks
(Berry 91-97). The German messengers explained that they
faulted themselves for trusting in their own powers instead
of God, who they felt was punishing them for their pride and
lack of patience. However, the cursed "idol of
Constantinople,"6 the emperor Manuel, did not escape blame.
The messengers felt that he was responsible for the disaster
because he had given them a treacherous guide. The guide
had left the crusader army after the Germans ran out of food
and provisions for the horses. The day after they
discovered his disappearance they found themselves
surrounded by Turks. They accused the guide of leading the
Turks to them. They had been in no position to defend
themselves from the attacks of the Turks and were forced to
retreat, suffering heavy losses. The emperor himself had
been wounded. Odo continues the messengers’ story by
relating that the Germans eventually arrived at Nicaea where
the hungry crusaders found food in the hands of the Greeks,
who demanded "cuirass and swords instead of gold in order to

strip the army bare" (Berry 97). Later Conrad caught up

 

6 The Latin text reads, "Deinde Constantinopolitanum idolum
execrabantur, qui cum dedisset eis vieae conductorem et traditorem,
quantum in ipso fuit Christianorum. fidem stravit, paganismum
stabilivit, animos illorum timidos animavit, fervorem nostrorum
frigidavit (Berry 90; tmu5). Berry feels that (kk) might have
Chosen this name for Manuel because of his appearance and the
GXtreme ceremony associated with the emperor (76).

42
with the French and made plans with Louis VII to continue to
the Holy Land.

According to Berry, Odo of Deuil was prejudiced against
the Greeks and their emperor (xxiin56). He blamed Manuel
for many of the woes which befell the French and German
armies. Even the Greek historian, Nicetas, points out that
Manuel mistrusted the crusaders and was responsible for the
evils that befell the crusaders in Asia Minor. Although the
German crusaders may not have been aware of Manuel’s
suspicions, they certainly must have been aware of the
presence of a Greek army sent to keep them from deviating
from the path which they were to follow through Byzantium.
The lack of food and the natural disaster which befell the
Germans would have influenced their perceptions of the
Greeks as well. The apparent treachery of the guide
provided by Manuel contributed to hostility toward the Greek
emperor. Whether or not such criticism is justified is
academic as far as this study is concerned. The important
thing to note is that the actions of the Greek emperor were
enough to arouse the distrust of Odo of Deuil, a participant
and an eye-witness to events of the second crusade.

4. Marriage of Henry II and Theodora (Privilegium Minus)

The Babenbergers had not always ruled both the
margravate of Austria and the duchy of Bavaria. The Duchy
of Bavaria had been granted Leopold IV in 1136 by Conrad III
in an effort to control the Henry the Proud, whose family,
the Welfs, ruled both Saxony and Bavaria, and were a

constant threat to the power of Conrad III. Henry II

43
"Jasomirgott" became duke of Bavaria in 1143 and remained so
until 1156. At that time, the margravate of Austria was
made into a duchy by Frederick I and the duchy of Bavaria
was returned to Henry the Lion in order to establish peace
between the two families. The return of the duchy of
Bavaria was also an attempt to insure the success of
Frederick I’s policies for which the support of both Henries
was necessary. The document "privilegium minus" gives
testament to the return of Bavaria and Austria being made
into a duchy. Among the witnesses are Gebhard of
Burghausen, whose fief was under the control of the Welfs,
as well as a "comes de Peilstein", who would have been

Conrad I of Peilstein at that time (1156)(Appelt, Die

 

Urkunden Friedrichs 1., 260).

According to the "privilegium minus", both Theodora and
Henry II were given the duchy of Austria to rule. This was
an unusual event. Heilig advances the theory that the

double enfeoffment of Austria was part of the marriage
contract drawn up before the marriage of Henry II and
Theodora (165-66). Arrangements for the marriage of
Theodora and Henry II were probably made during Conrad’s
visit to Manuel (Heilig 162). Conrad, Otto of Freising,
Frederick of Swabia, Henry II of Austria, and others met
with Manuel, Conrad’s "brother and friend", near
Thessalonica (Qggta, 265). The marriage contract would have
assured Theodora of inheriting Austria in the event of
Ilenry’s death. The "privilegium minus" included this

E>roviso and established that should Henry II die without

44
having named an heir, then his wife would be in the position
to name an heir.

5. Frederick I and his encounter with the Greeks in 1156
Otto of Freising reports that in 1156, during the
Imperial Diet held in Wfirzburg, a certain Wibald of Corvey,

returned from Constantinople. He had been sent there as
Frederick’s ambassador after Frederick’s encounter with
Jonathan Ducas and Palaologus, Greek ambassadors in 1155.
These ambassadors accompanied Wibald from Constantinople,
but remained in the city of Salzburg because Frederick had
refused them an audience. His unwillingness to meet with
them stemmed from a report that the Greeks had stolen
letters, affixed with Frederick’s seal, after his meeting
with the two Greeks in 1155. Using those letters and
bribes, they had convinced the people of Apulia and Compania
that Frederick had relinquished control of these areas to
them (QggLQ 383-85).

In a letter to Otto of Freising (figgta 89), Frederick
relates that the Greek ambassadors had offered Frederick a
large amount of money and rich presents, if he and his army
would attack William II of Sicily who had taken Apulia from
the Greeks (figgta 361). Frederick refused, citing the
unwillingness of his princes to start a campaign against
Apulia and the exhaustion of his troops. Frederick goes on
to say that the Greeks had departed for Apulia trusting in
their numbers and large amount of money to help them to

succeed. They drove William’s troops out of the Apulian

45
city of Bari and thought they had these areas under their
control.

Frederick would not have been so upset about this
incident except for the fact that the Greeks used his name
to gain control of Apulia and Compania. Although he hated
William II, he did not want to have border areas of his
empire taken over by foreigners (Gesta 385).

William II eventually mustered his troops and in a
surprise attack retook Bari, taking several Greeks captive
while killing many others. He also confiscated a large
amount of Greek funds. Because of the fact that William II
had regained control of Apulia and Compania, Frederick did
not try the Greek ambassadors as traitors or send them back
to Constantinople. Instead he granted them an audience at
the Imperial Diet to be held in Nuremburg in July.

At this Diet the Greek ambassadors informed Frederick
that Manuel had suffered a heavy defeat at the hands of the
Boris, king of Hungary. They had come to ask for a marriage
alliance and to ask that Frederick lead an army against the
Hungarians by September of that year. Unfortunately for
Manuel, Frederick had already married Beatrice earlier that
year at the Diet held in Wfirzburg. He also declined to send
an army against Boris because he felt he could not assemble

one that quickly (Gesta 389).

 

C. Patronage
The predominance of Amalger and Wolfrat of Tengelinger
in the epic and the praise that this particular family

receives, indicates that the patron of Kbnig Rother was

 

46
probably a member this family (Urbanek 66-94, Meves 99).
According to Urbanek and Meves, the Tengelingers would have
had the funds to commission someone to write down this
story. More significantly, it can be demonstrated that the
family’s social and political interests coincided with the

predominant themes found in Kbnig Rother. As discussed

 

earlier, a text is only important to an audience in so far
as the audience can recognize itself in that text.
1. Patron’s Family History

The following sketch is based on Urbanek’s Kaiser,
Grafen und Mazene im "Kbnig Rother" (35-48, 66-94). The
family Tengelinger came to prominence in Bavaria during the
reign of Frederick I of Tengelinger (approx. 1048-1071).
His lineage represented the continuation of the
Sieghardinger line, whose founder, Sieghard I (+906), was a
blood relative of the Carolingians (35). Frederick I’s line
survived into the period of the writing of the epic in three
branches: the Burghausens, the Peilsteins, and the Plaiens.
In the period during which the epic was written these
families were represented respectively by:
I. Burghausen (lands were a Welf fief, loyal to Welfs)

Gebhard I (+1163)

Gebhard II (+1168),
II. Peilstein and Hall (possessed allodial lands, loyal to
Babenbergers)

Conrad I (+1168) m Euphemia (Babenberg)

m Adela of Orlamfinde

Conrad II (+1195)

47

III. Plaien

Liutold I (+1164) m Uta (Peilstein)

Liutpold (+1193) 0 Ida (Burghausen)
Their power was represented by the possession of land (86).
In the East in the margravate of lower Austria lay Burg
Peilstein and properties near Krems and St. Pdlten. In what
was then Bavaria lay Burg Karlstein near Reichenhall with
lands in the Chiem, Salzburg, and Pon Districts. In Rhine-
Franconian Hessen lay areas near Wetzlar and GieBen with the
center of the possessions being in the area around Kleeburg.
The Tengelingers were also governors of the monasteries of
Michelbeuren, Reichersberg, St. Zeno, and the Archdiocese of

Salzburg.

 

libhlnen

.‘llffclcll

 

 

 

 

Fig. 1. Map of Tengelinger Holdings (Urbanek 38)

48

Given the social stature of the various counts mentioned,
the amount of land, as well as the governorship over the
various monasteries, it would be fair to assume that
theTengelingers would have had the funds to pay for a
written version of Rother.
2. The Patron: Conrad I of Peilstein

Among the counts named, there are several reasons to
recognize Count Conrad I of Peilstein (+1168) as the patron

of K6nig Rother. The name Rother became popular in the area

 

governed by the Tengelingers. The popularity of the name
Rother lasted from about 1180 to the end of the twelfth
century. The name’s popularity is documented in the
"Urkunden", "Traditionen", and "Nekrologen" of the monastery
Michelbeuren and the church of St. Peter over which the
Tengelingers had a governorship since the time of Frederick
I of Tengelingen (+1071). Another source of evidence of the
patronage of Conrad I would have been his position in
Austria and Bavaria as one of the most powerful counts as
far as land and position were concerned. Through marriage
and inheritance he gained possession of lands in Austria
near the Viennese Forest, which were ruled from Burg
Peilstein (There were governorships over the monasteries of
Krems and St. Pblten); lands in the Salzburg, Chiem, and Pon
districts, which were ruled from Burg Karlstein at
Reichenhall; and the lands gained through his wife, Adela of
Orlamfinde, in Rhine-Franconian Hessen. He was governor of
the monasteries of Michaelbeuren, Reichersberg, St. Zeno,

and the Archdiocese of Salzburg. The areas of Bavaria,

49
Austria, and Germany controlled by Conrad were also areas
where copies of Liudprand’s works were extant during the

twelfth century. Copies of Liudprand’s Antapodosis, which,

 

along with the Le atio, had negative descriptions of
Constantinople and the Byzantine court, could be found in
Bavaria (Freising and other monasteries), lower Austria
(Neuburg, Zwettl, Vienna) and in the Lorraine (lost version
of the Legatio in Trier; other monasteries include
Otterberg, Laubach, Metz)(See Becker 54 and Bauer 240-242).
This means Conrad and the courtly audience could have been
aware of these works, since he had political dealings with
several of the monasteries. Conrad was also present at the
courts of the Babenbergers at Regensburg (the main court of
the Dukes of Bavaria) and Vienna (the main court of the
margrave and eventual dukes of Austria). He was sure to
have been interested in Byzantium, since a Byzantine
princess had been residing at those courts since 1148.
Conrad of Peilstein had also taken part in the second
crusade which was lead by the German king, Conrad III. One
could also assume that the dynastic dispute over the duchy
of Bavaria between Henry the Lion (Welf) and Henry II
"Jasomirgott" (Babenberger) would have been of interest to
Conrad of Peilstein, because of his first marriage to
Euphemia, a Babenberger, and because of the lands he
possessed both in lower Austria and in Bavaria. His second
marriage to Adela of Orlamfinde (ca.1135) was also unusual,
considering the distance to her possessions in the

Rhineland. Conrad’s possessions in the Rhineland put him in

50
a position to come into contact with cultural centers of the
Rhineland, where the Heidelberg manuscript was produced. A
last piece of evidence supporting Conrad I of Peilstein/Hall
as the patron of Rother deals with the family’s main
residence at Karlstein. At the time of Charles the Great it
had already been established as a fortress (Urbanek 91).
The inclusion of Charles the Great as Rother’s great
grandson in the epic, the ties of the Tengelingers to
Charles the Great, and the long history associated with the
seat of Conrad’s power at Karlstein transform the tale of
Rother into a celebration of family history and veneration

of family traditions of wise honorable rule.

III. ANALYSIS OF CONSTANTINE’S ROLE IN KONIG ROTHER

I would now like to turn to the aspects of leadership
as represented by the Greek king Constantine and how this
depiction reflects our audience’s expectations regarding a
Byzantine emperor. The negative aspects of Constantine’s
rule and his personality are suggested through his personal
relationship with his daughter, through the commentary of
the queen and courtiers, and through his encounters with
Rother. An analysis of the scenes taken from the epic which
focus on these various perspectives provides the basis for
comparison with Tengelinger’s expectations regarding the
Byzantines and historical information regarding the West’s
encounters with Byzantium.
A. Perspective: Family

Constantine’s wife and daughter play important roles.
The daughter figure is portrayed in a positive light in the
epic. She is desirable as a wife for a western ruler
because of her beauty and status. The large number of

suitors who have died seeking her hand gives another sign of

her desirability. She is also Constantine’s prized
possession. Constantine’s refusal to allow her to marry
emphasizes this standing. Knowledge of her status

encourages her to appeal to Constantine’s emotional side
when she endeavors to acquire the things she wants and when
she seeks to help Rother. She also represents Constantine’s
salvation in dealing with foreign powers. Her value in this
regard is demonstrated by Constantine’s use of her

desirability to save his life and his realm from the heathen

51

52
Ymelot. He does this by forcing her to marry the son of
Ymelot, Basilistius. Another indication of her value comes
at the end of the epic when Rother allows Constantine to
live after Constantine agrees to turn his daughter over to
him. Constantine’s wife is also positively portrayed. The
emotional contact such as we find between father and
daughter is not to be found between husband and wife. She
has the political savvy that her husband lacks. She also
provides critical commentary on the outcome of her husbands
various ploys. A closer examination of Constantine from the
perspective of the daughter and the queen will provide us
with a catalog of his weaknesses.
1. Constantine’s Daughter
The princess’s active role in the epic begins after the

arrival of Rother, who is disguised as Dieterich (synopsis
49-59). The daughter has heard that Rother’s generosity
and great wealth are impressive. She begins to use her
influence on her father to meet with the knight of whom she
has heard so much. The first meeting with Rother is
attempted through a festival in honor of Constantine. On
the advice of her handmaiden, Herlint, she goes to her
father’s bed chamber:

Vnde sprach woldir er nu vater min.

Dise pinkelten hir heime sin.

Da duchte mich ein ere geltan.

Vnd sameneten v were man.

Daz die I recken sagin.

ob ir ieht reiche waren.

53

Ich ne weiz war 20 der uvrste sal.

Her ne hette ette : wane schal.
mitvroweden in deme hove sin. (1538-1544)
And said: "If you, my father dear,/ This Easter

should be staying here,/ It would seem to me a
fitting thing/ To invite to the court your
following,/ So that the heroes may proclaim/ How
richly you deserve your fame./ I don’t know what
good a prince may be/ If at his court
occasionally/ There isn’t rejoicing on every

side."

This appeal to Constantine’s vanity is successful and he

replies:

Woldich tochter : daz du levis.
We du nach den heren strevis.
Vnde retis ie daz beste.

Ich wille haven geste.)

daz man immer sagete mere.

Waz hie schales :: were.

20 disen hochgecitin.

min gewalt get so wide.
Virsizzet iz daz geman.

der moz den liph , virloren han.7 (1545-1556)

 

7 Swer , sich ieht sazte dar widir.
Deme geotmaniz bi : der widen.

Daz her
Dan man

gerne dar gienge.
:in hienge.(1565-1567)

54
Blessings on you, daughter mine!/ How towards
honor you incline!/ As always your counsel is the
best./ Now I shall ask so many a guest/ That one
will always want to hear/ About the revelry and
the cheer/ At Constantine’s festivity./ So great
is the power invested in me/ That if somebody
stays away,/ With his life he will be made to pay.
None of Constantine’s vassals could afford not to come to
court. The consequence would have been the gallows. Such a
despotic use of power was typical of Byzantine emperors. An
audience familiar with the works of Liudprand or aware of
the disastrous second crusade would be able to associate the
historical figures with this depiction of the despotic
Byzantine ruler.

Although this first attempt by the princess to see
Rother fails, this particular scene represents the type of
relationship that exists between Constantine and his
daughter. She only needs to appeal to his vanity, in order
to gain those things which she wants and, as is made clear
by Constantine’s reply. That is exactly the kind of thing
Constantine wants to hear about himself. It will be seen
later that Constantine acts upon nothing, unless it fits his
conception of himself as a powerful ruler.

2. The Queen

The queen is first introduced at the arrival of
Rother’s messengers (synopsis 12-16). She comments:

we gerne ich daz wiste.

wannen : sie kumen weren.

55
ir gewant is seltseene.
swer : sie hat vs gesant.
her in unser lant.
der ist : ein statehafter man.
I

of hich mer rechte ver , sinnen can.

mich dunket got herre.

Daz : wir dese boden heren.
sie ne sint der antworte :: nicht gwone
Die du thos manigen boten : uore. (253—64)

Dearly should I like to hear/ From whence these
gentlemen do fare./ Curious raiment they do
wear!/ Whosoever did command/ That they should
journey to our land/ Must be a lord of
considerable might -/ If I am able to judge
aright./ Sire, it would seem wise to me/ To treat
these envoys honorably./ Such an answer will not
do/ As you’ve made to so many hitherto.
Her comments reveal that she is aware that there is
something unusual about these messengers, and she informs
Constantine that he should change his mind about his
daughter’s eligibility for marriage. The author lets his
audience know from the start that the queen is more
politically astute than her husband. The inept Constantine
ignores her advice.
The arrival of Dieterich/Rother on his mission to
ascertain what happened to his messengers sets the scene for

more comments from the queen (synopsis 27-40). Constantine

56
informs Dieterich that he is glad that Dieterich was not
asking for the hand of his daughter as had Rother’s
messengers, boasting:
den hanich ie doch : bedwungin.
sine botin sin hiere bebunden. :
in mime kerkenere.

her ne ge siet sie :nimmer mere. (983-987)

I’ve got the better of him all the same!/ The men
who came here in his name/ Are lying chained to my
dungeon floor./ Never will he see them more!
The giant Asprian takes offense at Constantine’s gloating
and threatens to make trouble at the court because of this
insult to Rother. Constantine, not understanding Asprian’s
anger, but very nervous, relieves the situation by lying.
He tells Asprian and the rest of Dieterich’s men:
herre ir zvrnit ane : not.
wande huch hi neman misse bot. :
Die rede die ich han getan.
Die sulder nicht : zo nide han.
)

Mich machent getrukint mine man.

Daz ich hute alse en tore gan. i
1

Von du ne kan ich nicheime goten knechte. ,

Ge anwarten zo rechte. (1008-15)

Your anger causes me some surprise;/ You’ve not
been insulted in any wise./ That little speech

which I just gave/ Should not upset you, hero

57

brave./ My men have got me so drunk today/ That

like a fool I babble away./ That’s why I shouldn’t

even try/ To give a good lad a proper reply.
Constantine has not accepted Dieterich as a vassal yet.
Dieterich and his men leave the court, return to their ships
and unload them. The giant Widolt, who has been bound
because of his ferociousness, is encouraged to run toward
Constantinople and cause all the Greeks to run away in fear.
The queen points out on hearing about this:

Hi uoren sie { den meister din.

In einer ketenen zvvaren. 3
Owi we tvmp wer do waren.
Daz vver : unse tochter uirsageten Rothere.
Der : dise uirtreiph vber mere.

12 ne gewelt ): nicht grozer wisheit.

Got der moze geven : leit

dineme ungemote.

i

Owi herre gote. ,

Nu mochtistu dise van oder slan.

ob wer : minen rat hedden getan.
Ich wene aber : sowes sie dich beten.
Daz du iz vor vorchtin : tetes.

Mer dan dur gote.

(000)
Mich dunkit : daz sie dine meistere sin.

Due torstis baz : in daz ovge din.

Gegrifin mit thiner hant. :

Den du zornetis wider dessen wigant. :

58
Immer mit eineme hare.
Hude ne is din : gebare

nicht kunnicliche getan.

Du zvckis dich trunckenheit an. (1052-83)

That they’re leading to you your master now,/
Fastened to a chain, in troth!/ Alas! how stupid
were we both/ To have kept our daughter from the
man/ Who banished these fellows from his land./
Such conduct wasn’t very wise./ May God Almighty
now chastise/ Your peevish disposition!/ Ah, if my
admonition/ You had, good sir, paid heed to then,/
You now could capture or slay these men. but I bet
that whatever they ask of you,/ Out of fear you
will agree to do/ and not at all because you are
kind./ (...) /They are too strong for you, 0 King/
Methinks you had rather dare to bring/ Your hand
up sharp into your eye/ Than with his followers to
vie/ Over even a tiny pin./ Your conduct all this
day has been/ Unworthy of a gentleman/ Your
drunkenness is but a sham!
The queen emphasizes the fact that Constantine has not
handled the situation correctly. She chides him for not
taking her advice and lets him know that none of this would
have happened if only he would have permitted the marriage
between Rother and his daughter. She makes it clear that he

has put himself and his kingdom into a precarious

59
predicament. She also comments on his character, pointing
out that such behavior is not that of a king’s.

Later, Constantine has another confrontation with the
giants. Asprian is responsible for killing Constantine’s
pet lion, because it has eaten Asprian’s bread, and neither
Constantine nor his men are able to prevent the killing.
The queen finds the situation comical and says:

Nu gedenke herre constantin.
Daz sich :dise nicht nemochten er weren.
:

We woldestu den dich vor rothere generen.

Gedenkit : her an sine man.

So moz din lant an owee : gan.

Wane givestu mir noch die haftin. :
Die dar ligint an uncrachten.
I

Daz ich sie , moce vz nimen.

Sie havent ein vil swar liven. :: (1181-89)

Consider, Constantine, in your mind!/ If these men
couldn’t put up a fight,/ How could you oppose
King Rother’s might?/ If he should inquire about
his men,/ Your land will suffer grievously then.
Now why don’t you give the men to me/ Who are
languishing here so miserably,/ That I may bring
them into the air./ How very wretchedly they fare!
The messengers’ situation, on which the queen is commenting,
is reminiscent of Liudprand’s report of his own

imprisonment. The narrator’s report of Constantine’s

60
comments is an example of a stubborn Greek emperor who made
life miserable for the prisoners:
Ir bete were al werloren :
se mostin dolen sinen zorn.
12 were ir leit : oder lieb.
I

Sie nequamin von kriechen nicht ,

so lange so er lebete gen. (1192-96)

It was no use for her to ask:/ They still would
have to feel his wrath,/ Whether or not it gave
her pain./ On the soil of Greece they must remain/
As long as he still had his life.
The queen is irritated by his stubbornness and is ready to
go against him, saying:
Nu sin sie viesuellit :
harte misse w°rit.
Owi des ir uil schonin libes. :
Der mir armen wibe.
Einin svlichen helfere. :
Wider den kuninc gebe.

Also die dar ligit : gebundin.

So mostin sie lande. (1198-1214)

Of health they have been cheated;/ Cruelly they’ve
been treated./ Alas for their fair manhood!/ If
only I poor woman could/ Obtain the help of such a

man/ To work against the Emperor’s plan/ As that

61

brave fellow fettered there/ Back to their

homeland they would fare.
In these scenes we see again that the queen has a clear
picture of the situation. She is aware of Rother’s power
and also the consequences if he should happen to come
searching for his men. The presence of Dieterich and the
giants at Constantine’s court is evidence of that fact.
Another interesting point is that the queen is ready to defy
Constantine for the sake of Rother’s messengers.
Later, the queen again pauses to comment on Constantine’s
behavior. The giant Asprian is the cause of the problem.
This time he has started an uproar at court during
preparations for the Easter feast by killing the steward of
Frederick, one of Constantine’s dukes. Constantine sends
for Dieterich. Dieterich offers to have Asprian killed if
he has dishonored any of Constantine’s nobles. All of the
courtiers fear Asprian’s return and simply ask Dieterich to
control his men in the future. As Constantine begins to
complain about the incident, the queen informs him:

Nu swich sprach die kunin-{gin.

Vnde laze wir daz geschvzze.

Din : rede ist unnvzze.

Hette der so na gesin. :

Daz du ene rechte hettis gesen.

Dir ne : gehulfe des nichein boge.

Du ne mostis : sin gevlogin.

zo aller vurdrist after wege :

(...)

62
Vondu moz : ich wole clagen.
Nu dulde honede vnde : schaden.
Hir in dime lande.
Von diethe—{richis manne. (1787-1804)

H

"Be silent now, the good queen bade,/ "And let us
not pursue this matter./ You know it’s only idle
chatter./ If he had stood so near to you/ That you
could have seen all you wanted to,/ No good at all
would a bow have been:/ You would have run away
from him/ Ahead of the others, I declare! (...)/
Reason enough have I to complain!/ Suffer now the
disgrace and shame/ Here in your realm as best you
can/ At the hands of the noble Dieterich’s man."

The queen’s comments allow the audience to know what she

thinks of her husband’s bravery. She is hard in her

critique, telling him to tolerate the slight against him.

Constantine suffers humiliation in his own realm and he has

no one but himself to blame for it.

After Ymelot’s army is defeated by Rother’s men,
Constantine fears for his life because of the role he played
in almost getting Rother killed (synopsis 89-106). He rues
the day he sent the minstrel to kidnap Rother’s wife. The
queen does not give him much sympathy in her reply:

Wes vorstis : du constantin
Der helfint die konine. :

Uon woster babilonie.

Daz du rotheren hais. l:

63

Waz of du in noch geuais.

Dinis ouer truwen : scanden.

Ich ne mochtis dir ze nie gesagin.) (4539-45)

0 Constantine, why be afraid?/ Those princes can

surely be counted on/ From the land of Egyptian

Babylon/ To help you hang the mighty king./

Perhaps you still can capture him./ ’Tis pride has

been your downfall!/ You wouldn’t listen to me at

all.
The queen is being ironic in pointing out that Constantine
has bad taste in allies. Several themes which have been
present throughout her comments in Rother are contained in
this passage: his stubbornness in not permitting his
daughter to remain with Rother, which would have given him a
powerful ally against the heathens; his stupidity in making
an alliance with a heathen king; and his unwillingness to
listen to good counsel. These comments also make clear how
weak and ineffective a ruler Constantine really is.

At the conclusion of the epic, Constantine must face
Rother. He places his wife and daughter in front of him,
hoping to draw attention away from himself. He is afraid of
what Rother and his men might do to him because of his role
in Rother’s capture. Upon seeing Constantine’s approach
Widolt begins to make a terrible noise by gnashing his teeth
on his club, which causes sparks to fly high into the air.
Widolt’s actions confirm that Constantine is in grave

danger. Only Rother’s mercy stands between him and the

64

wrath of the giants. The queen begins to play upon
Constantine’s fears by saying:

Du solt uor rothere stan.

(...)

Wene durch des koningis ere.)

Dune bescowedis nimmer mere.

Weder :lucte noch lant.

Dich sloge der selue : ualant.

Inbreche her uon der lannin. }

Din leuent were irgangin. (4667-80)

Closer to Rother you should stand!/ (...) If it
weren’t for the king’s good name,/ Never would you
see again/ Either your people or your land:/ You
would be slain by that devil’s hand./ If from his
chains he break away,/ You will not see another
day!
Once again the queen gives the audience an indication that
she thinks Rother is the better and more powerful leader.
The portrait of Constantine which is drawn from his
relationship to his queen is not positive. Although she
likes the mana, she is also quick to point out time and
again that his abilities as king leave much to be desired.
As far as his personal faults are concerned, he is stubborn,

a boaster, and a liar. This also matches the description

that Liudprand gives Otto of Nicephorus Phocas. At his

 

3 2847 The queen cries when she thinks that she has lost
Constantine.

65

court, Constantine’s weakness is seen in the absence of
personal power needed to control the situation when the
giants start getting out of hand or when a problem arises
between his own vassals and Dieterich/Rother’s men. One can
actually see Rother taking over the allegiance of
Constantine’s queen through her opinions. Constantine makes
others into scapegoats instead of admitting to his own
stupidity and shortcomings. Politically, he is short-
sighted and is unable to use the marriage of his daughter to
make beneficial alliances. Like Nicephorus, Constantine
does not use diplomacy in dealing with messengers of an
apparently powerful Western ruler. Instead of treating
Rother’s men with honor and courtesy as would be expected,
he has them imprisoned and treats them as common criminals.
Another important aspect in analyzing the queen’s comments
on Constantine’s handling of political situations is to see
the queen as representative of the audience’s expectations.
When one considers that Manuel’s first wife was Bertha of
Sulzbach, a practical and sensible woman according to
Nicetas, who was known to the members of the Tengelinger
family, this proposition does not appear quite as improbable
as one would assume. Such an interpretation would explain
the positive description of the queen as well as her
sympathy for Rother’s cause.
B. Perspective: Court

The audience’s impression of the state of Constantine’s
court can be found in Berchter’s comments to Rother after

Asprian’s misadventure with the lion. He tells his master,

66

Rother that everyone at court seems to be afraid because of
what has happened. There is muttering among Constantine’s
vassals because they are afraid that they will share the
same fate as Constantine’s lion at the hands of the giants.
Berchter feels that it would be better for them to retire to
their lodgings. He also comments on the poor exiled knights
that he sees at Constantine’s court and tells Rother:

Io mochtin sie heime. :

Wole wesen riche.

Sie lieben iamerliche.

Daz : ir barmit mich sere.

Nu hilfen dur dine : here

Du bist richir dan constantin.

warumme : solditu an siner spise sin.

Iz ne were vns nicht : mvgelich.: (1238-44)

Surely in their own domain/ They all were lords of
high esteem./ Here the life they live is mean./
The pity I feel for them is great./ Help them for
your honor’s sake!/ You are richer than
Constantine./ Why at his table should you dine?/
It doesn’t become us at all you know.
Berchter’s comments influence the listener by implying that
Constantine is a less powerful lord than Rother, because he
is unable to provide for the men at his court. Bumke tells
us that a king’s ability to provide for his vassals is a
mark of his power and that his ability to outfit his vassals

with needed armaments and fine clothes is a criterion for

67

how many knights a lord can support. Constantine is not
free with his money and this is supported by the comments
one of his men makes about their life at court after having
seen the finery worn by Rother and his men:

Wer leven bosliche.

daz wir dienin eime zagin.

Der ime vil seldene ) grocen schadin.

Durch usir siheinis willen : tot.

Wande eine erbarmet zo harde daz got i. (1115-

19)

While we live here so wretchedly!/ That’s because
we serve a stingy lord/ Who thinks he never can
afford/ To make us any kind of pleasure -/ So
enamored is he of his treasure!

Berchter notices that Constantine does not provide money or

clothing to properly attire the wretched at his court who

are of noble birth. He convinces Dieterich that he should
be generous and help these men. Rother’s magnanimity
eventually gains him 6000 men. Constantine could have used

this tactic himself and it would have brought him both
prestige at his own court and possibly a group of courtiers
willing to defend his honor.

However, Constantine’s subjects prefer Rother and his
generous giving to Constantine’s stinginess. This aspect is
presented in the episode in which the character of Arnold is
introduced into the epic. Arnold, a knight driven from his

lands because of war, is told by a merchant to seek out

68

Dieterich who would provide for him. Dieterich furnishes
Arnold with money and clothes. Even Asprian promises to
supply Arnold with gear to outfit 30 warriors every year
(1446). When Arnold presents himself at Constantine’s
court, the barons and counts, being impressed by the finery
of Arnold and his men, ask him where they received their
fine clothes. Upon hearing that it was Dieterich who
provided them with such splendid things, the whole court,
except for the high princes, went to Dieterich’s lodgings
and received many wonderful things. This scene is a
dramatic presentation of the situation at Constantine’s
court, in that he is simply unwilling to provide for the
nobles at his court. Because of this he is unable to garner
the sort of respect and devotion in his relationship with
his men that Dieterich can with his men or even with
Constantine’s vassals.
C. Perspective: Rother/Dieterich

The third perspective is based on the comparison made
between Rother and Constantine. The author’s comparison of
Constantine and Rother presents Constantine as being the
weaker ruler. One way the author makes this clear is by
telling the audience the number of vassals at each king’s
command. As Dobozy points out, "The larger the number of

vassals at the king’s disposal and the higher their rank,

the greater his own power" (71). As Rother is introduced,
the audience learns that: "Ime dientin andere heren./zvene
vnde sibincih kuninge/die waren ime al vnder tan" (6-9).

(Before him other lords knelt down, Princes seventy-and-two,

69
Honorable men and true: To him was subject all their land.)
When Constantine calls his vassals to the Easter feast, the
audience is told that: "Hin zo deme poderamus houe. Seszen
herzogen. Unde drizzit grauin" (1579-81). (Then sixteen
dukes set out form home/ With thirty counts coming close
behind.) There is a large difference in power. Rother is
served by kings. Constantine can only show dukes and counts
in his following.

The author builds on this comparison of power by
showing us Dieterich/Rother’s ability to gather men to
himself through his generosity and fairness, as opposed to
Constantine’s use of death threats. As has already been
pointed out, a lord must be rich in order to outfit his
knights properly. Rother has apparently unlimited wealth
and shows it off each time he or his men are present at
Constantine’s court. His magnanimity draws the curiosity of
his future wife and also the vassels of Constantine’s court.
When the knight Arnold asks for help, the merchant does not
send him to Constantine. He sends him to Dieterich/Bother.
Rother’s relationship to Arnold also shows the kind of
faithfulness that Rother’s generosity commands. Arnold is
the one who pits his men against all of Ymelot’s army in
order to save Rother from hanging. Through Constantine’s
own courtiers we learn that he is not able and more than
likely not willing to part with his money in order to outfit
or attract vassals the way Rother does. When Constantine’s
court hears of the wealth that Rother is giving away, they

leave Constantine’s court, go to Rother’s lodgings, and

70
return with much finery. Constantine also runs into
difficulties when Ymelot attacks the first time and must ask
Rother to help him defend his kingdom against Ymelot’s army
(synopsis 60-72). One could almost say that Rother had
become de facto ruler of Constantinople through his
generosity.

Another area of comparison lies in the intelligence of
both rulers. Rother’s ligt helps him get his men out of
prison and a wife. Constantine’s ligt simply draws
criticism from his wife. (ex. locking up Rother’s
messengers, Constantine’s drunkenness, choice of allies,
e.g. Ymelot). The same type of Greek intelligence was shown
on the part of Manuel’s ambassadors after the defeat of
Spoleto in 1155. Instead of accepting Frederick’s answer,
they lied to the inhabitants of Apulia and Compania
concerning the letters bearing Frederick’s seal and paid the
citizens, if the authority of Frederick was not enough.
Their actions drew Frederick’s ire and criticism and almost
lost them the chance to present their request on behalf of
the empress Bertha of Sulzbach.

The final comparison comes as Constantine must face the
victorious Rother after Ymelot has been defeated. As his
wife points out, he is dependent on Rother to remain alive.
Without Rother’s support and good will, the giants would
have killed him. Constantine presents himself to Rother and
admits that he was foolish for stealing his daughter back
and now wishes he had not done it. Rother forgives him and

he rejoices because his daughter has married Rother.

Conclusion

The interpretation of the figure of Constantine in the
twelfth century epic, Kbnig Rother, confirms that the
depiction of the Greek king conforms to the expectations of
the Tengelinger audience for which it was written. The
Tengelinger family was identified as being members of the
German aristocracy located in Bavaria. They had interests
in leadership, lord/vassal relationship, political
marriages, and Byzantium.

Historical events which would have influenced an
audience’s expectations regarding the Byzantines were the
wooing expedition of Liudprand of Cremona, the marriages of
Bertha of Sulzbach to Manuel I and Henry II of Austria to
Theodora Comnena, the second crusade, and Frederick I’s
relationship to Byzantium. These events showed that
marriages involving Greeks were important and desirable in
forming political alliances with the Byzantine empire.
However, the feeling toward the Greeks and their emperor was
generally negative. It can be shown that a Greek ruler such
as Nicephorus Phocas was characterized as being boastful,
untrustworthy, a liar, and lacking in social graces.

Another example was Manuel I who was mistrustful of the West
and its rulers and was held responsible by Western and
Eastern chroniclers for the defeat of the Germans during the
second crusade. The connection between these historical
events and their effect on the audience of Rother was
established by finding the patron for Rother. The patron,

according to Urbanek, was Conrad I of Peilstein/Hall, head

71

72
of a powerful branch of the Tengelinger family located
around the area of Salzburg, Austria, which was part of
Bavaria in the twelfth century. It can be shown that Conrad
was aware of the marriages, took part in the second crusade,
and had dealings with both Frederick I and Henry II of
Austria and that these connections would have had influence
on Conrad’s expectations. One could then assume that the
audience at the court of Conrad I would have also been aware
of these same events.

The figure of Constantine was weak and incompetent in
his political dealings with the West, was weak both
militarily and morally, and had several negative character
traits. It is my conclusion that Constantine is not simply
Rother’s opposite, but rather a figure whose
characterization was based on the Tengelinger court’s

expectations of a Greek ruler.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX
Fig. 2. Example from the Heidelberg Manuscript

... .0~1'“ ~&.:—
«WM! ‘ amt?“ ’ " ‘§i“'
.w ,
J INLI: 6‘ ."Le—

"gwsngMao magnifi- {1:13:11 ,
:qggww «Wm 11 1:15:1‘ " 'j ‘5

 
   
  
   
   
   
   
  
  
   
   
 
 

    
   

  

[153' )HUV” Ii

‘ :53. ‘N .W' wgtc 6111;613:313. 3 I I a
. , gm Afimmc’obwmfgn alc- £136,373}? )1

T: .1157)! 1 mar mm. W 114lequ

31:" (agnmwm cm "1757:1311; wok-3611f . ~

,' -‘ “finiufl 4th$1133 . ‘ mi} 0% out}

. mflmmwyutr 1313'" ’ IW'W -
09316.31 1:111 “with“ 31W mint: twig”

111:131: 1w denie- $731£m6k 4x2 WW

;.- n mmmbflm’lmwlr fwhuqnttwmwm

. 2 ._, 939103315111: 507113613 1131101111 , $1
.- E -. «alto $mvnnwtmufi

( A”, ,mmoapvtm 13mm: wimnmyw 3’3

- ' - - auée‘cgvtubwmzmw

  

   
 

  

74

LI ST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Primary Literature
Appelt, Heinrich, et al., eds. Die Urkunden Freidrichs I.

1152-1158. Die Urkunden der Deutschen Konige und

 

Kaiser. 10. pt. 1. Hannover: Hahnsche, 1975.

Bauer, Albert and Reinhold Rau using the translation of Paul
Hirsch, Max Bfidinger and Willhelm Wattenbach. Quellen
zur Geshichte der sachsischen Kaiserzeit: Widukinds
Sachsengeschichte, Ansalberts Fortsetzung der Chronik

Reginos, Liudprands Werke. Darmstadt:

 

Buchgesellschaft, 1971.

Berry, Virginia, trans. Odo of Deuil: De profectione
Ludovici VII in orientem. Diss. Univ. of Chicago,
1941. New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1948.

De Vries, Jan, ed. Rother. Germanische Bibliothek 13.

Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s Universitatsbuchhandlung,
1922.
Fichtenau, H. and E. Zbllner, eds. Die Siegelurgunden der

 

Babenberger bis 1215. Vienna: Holzhausen, 1950.
Frings, Theodor, and Joachim Kuhnt, eds. Konig Rother.
Rheinische Beitrage und Hfilfsbficher zur germanischen

Philologie und Volkskunde 3. Bonn, 1922.

76

77

---, eds. Konig Rother. 1922. Altdeutsche Texte ffir den

akademischen Unterricht 2. 3rd ed. Halle: Niemeyer,
1968.
Grabler, Franz, ed. and Intro. Die Krone der Komnenen: Die

 

Regierungszeit der Kaiser Joannes und Manuel Komnenos
(1118-1180) aus dem Geschichtswerg des Nicketas
Choniates. Byzantinische Geschichtsschreiber 7. Graz:
Styria, 1958.

Lichtenstein, Robert, trans. King Rother. Univ. of North
Carolina Studies in the Germanic Languages and
Literatures 36. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina,
1962.

Schmidt, Adolf, trans. and Walther Lammers, ed. Chronifi
oder Die Geschichte der zwei Staaten. By Otto, Bishop
of Freising. Ausgewahlte Quellen zur deutschen
Geschichte des Mittelalters 16. Berlin: Rfitten &
Loening, 1960.

Schmidt, Adolf, trans. + and Franz-Josef Schmale, ed. Die

 

Taten Friedrichs oder richtiger Cronica. By Bishop
Otto of Freising and Rahewin. Ausgewahlte Quellen zur
Deutschen Geschichte des Mittelalters 17. Berlin:
Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1965.

Secondary Literature

Becker, Josef. Textgeschichte Liudprands von Cremona.
Quellen und Untersuchungen zur lateinischen Philologie
des Mittelalters. 3,2. Mfinchen: Beck, 1908.

Brogsitter, Karl Otto. Artusepik. Stuttgart: Metzler,

1971.

78
Bumke, Joachim. Studien zum Ritterbegriff im 12. und 13.
Jahrhundert. Beihefte zum Euphorion 1. Heidelberg:

Winter, 1964.

JauB, Hans Robert. "Alteritat und Modernitat der
mittlelalterlichen Literatur." In: Haupt 312-73.
Dinser, Gudula. Koharenz und Struktur: Textlinguistische

 

und erzahltechnische Untersuchungen von "Kénig Rother".
Forum Litterarum 3. Koln: Bbhlau, 1975.

Dobozy, Maria, Full Circle: Kingship in the German Epic.
Goppinger Arbeiten zur Germanistik 399. Géppingen:

Kfimmerle, 1985.

 

 

Gellinek, Christian. "KonigiRother." Studie zur
literarischen Deutung. Mfinchen: Francke, 1968.
Haupt, Barbara, ed. Zum Mitteralterlichen Literaturbegriff.

 

Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1985.

Heilig, Konrad Josef. "Ostrom und das deutsche Reich um die
Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts." In: Kaisertumpund
Herzogggewalt im,Zeitalter Freidrichs I. Schriften des
Reichsinstituts ffir altere deutsche Geschichtskunde
(Monumenta Germaniae historica) 9. Leipzig:
Hiersemann, 1944.

Kaiser, Gert. "Zum Hochmittelalterlichen Literaturbegriff."
In: Haupt 374-424.

Lhotsky, Alphons. Quellenkunde zur Mittelalterlichen
Geschichte Osterreichs. Mitteilungen des Instituts ffir
osterreichische Geschichtsforschung. Erganzungsband

19. Graz: Bohlaus, 1963.

79

Meves, Uwe. Studien zu Konig Rother, Herzog Ernst und

 

Grauer Rock (Orendel). European University Papers,

 

series I 181. Frankfurt/M.: Lang, 1976.

Schroder, Walter Joh. Spielmannsepik. Stuttgart: Metzler,

 

1962.
Siegmund, Klaus. Zeitgeschichte und Dichtung im »Konig

Rother«: Versuch einer Neudatierung. Philolog.

 

Studien und Quellen. Berlin: Schmidt, 1959.

Urbanek, Ferdinand. Kaiser, Grafen und Mazene im "Konig
Rother." Philologische Studien und Quellen 71.

Berlin: Schmidt, 1976.

Wiegand, Herbert Ernst. Studien zur Minne und Ehe in
Wolframs Parzival und Hartmanns Artusepik. Quellen und
Forschungen zur Sprach- und Kulturgeschichte der
germanischen Volker 49 (173). Berlin: de Gruyter,

1972.

MICHIGAN STRTE UNIV. LIBRnRIEs
"WNW“!“NWWW"||l||H|||||||l|H|WHI
31293007536414