Kleist's ‘grand historical romance’ (‘großes historisches Ritterschauspiel’) has never found much favour with contemporary literary critics and it is not hard to see why. Its fairy-tale plot and happy ending seem far removed from the thematic and formal complexity of his other works. However, it should not be forgotten that, in the nineteenth century, what reputation Kleist enjoyed as a dramatist was largely due to the stage-success of this one play. Not only did it form part of the standard theatrical repertoire in Germany (attracting a succession of star performers in the title role) but it became sufficiently well-known to form the basis of a number of parodies. When the play was first performed in Vienna on 17 March 1810, whilst critics were divided as to its particular merits, there were few, if any, who doubted that it was to be taken as a straightforward celebration of the power of unconditional love. Only when the printed edition of the text appeared, (the ‘Buchausgabe’ of October 1810) did contemporary critics begin to take seriously the possibility that the play was a parody. Even so, this interpretation was not really taken up. Although one critic, writing in the Morgenblatt of 18 December 1810, suggests precisely this: ‘on reading the first few pages of this chivalrous tragedy, it seemed that what we had before us was a parody of the low-grade romantic twaddle of our day’ (‘Bei Lesung der ersten Blätter dieser Ritter-Tragödie glaubten wir, eine Parodie auf den romantischen Schnickschnack unsrer Zeit zu finden’), he subsequently dismisses the idea, claiming instead that ‘Kleist's intentions are utterly serious’ (‘daß es dem Hrn v. Kleist barer, brennender Ernst sei’; Lebensspuren, no. 373).