Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
2004.
Gabe und Gewalt.
p.
327.
2020.
Diz vliegende bîspel.
p.
243.
Article contents
‘Amor and His Brother Cupid’: The ‘Two Loves’ in Heinrich von Veldeke's ‘Eneit’
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 July 2016
Extract
Most scholars who have studied the medieval adaptations of Virgil's epic masterpiece agree that the principal change introduced to the story by the Roman d'Eneas and Heinrich von Veldeke's Eneit involves the Dido and Lavinia episodes. In general terms, the first four books of the Aeneid have been reduced in scope to the story of Dido, whereas Virgil's brief references to Lavinia in later books have been expanded into an independent love intrigue several thousand lines in length, creating a bipartite epic which anticipates the structure of Arthurian romance. There is considerably less unanimity of opinion concerning the nature and function of these two episodes in Veldeke's Eneit. The argument has circled for the most part around the question whether the loves of Dido and Lavinia for Eneas can be differentiated in terms of ‘unrehte’ and ‘rehte minne’ or in terms of fate and external circumstances. The following study focuses on a basic element of the work which has largely been ignored but could clarify the dispute: the distribution and roles of the gods of love in the two episodes.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Fordham University Press
References
1 Cited here according to the editions of Jacques Salverda de Grave (Bibliotheca Normannica 4; Halle 1891) and Ludwig Ettmüller (Dichtungen des deutschen Mittelalters 8; Leipzig 1852).Google Scholar
2 See Maurer, Maurer, ‘“Rechte ” Minne bei Heinrich von Veldeke,’ Archiv 187 (1950) 1–9, expanded in Leid: Studien zur Bedeutungs- und Problemgeschichte (Bern and Munich 1951) 98–114. Maurer has been attacked by Sacker, Sacker, ‘Heinrich von Veldeke 's Conception of the Aeneid,’ German Life and Letters 10 (1957) 210–18; Ruh, Ruh, Höfische Epik des deutschen Mittelalters I (Berlin 1967) 78 ff.; and especially Schröder, Schröder, ‘Dido und Lavine,' Z(eitschrift) f(ür) d(eutsches) A(ltertum ) 88 (1957/58) 161–95, rpt. in Veldeke-Studien (Berlin 1969) 13–51. For a review of the entire debate, see Brandt, Brandt, Die Erzählkonzeption Heinrichs von Veldeke in der ‘Eneide' (Marburger Beiträge zur Germanistik 29; Marburg 1969) 5-7.Google Scholar
3 In addition to the articles of Sacker and Ruh cited above, see Dittrich, Dittrich, ‘gote und got in Heinrichs von Veldeke Eneide,’ ZfdA 90 (1960/61) 85–122, 198-240, 274-302, and Die ‘Eneide’ Heinrichs von Veldeke I: Quellenkritischer Vergleich (Wiesbaden 1966).Google Scholar
4 Ritterdichter und Heidengötter (1150-1220 ) (Form und Geist 13; Leipzig 1930) 98 f. Other Middle High German works in which the trio appears are listed on 97. The unidentified poem of Hadamar von Laber is ‘Der Minne Falkner,’ ed. Schmeller, J. A. (Bibliothek des literarischen Vereins in Stuttgart 20; Stuttgart 1850) 171. See also Mittelhochdeutsche Minnereden II, ed. Thiele, G. (Deutsche Texte des Mittelalters 41; Berlin 1938) 17.83.Google Scholar
5 See Dittrich, Schröder, ‘gote und got' 87; Franz, Franz, Das Bild Griechenlands und Italiens in den mittelhochdeutschen epischen Erzählungen vor 1250 (Philologische Studien und Quellen 52; Berlin 1970) 350.Google Scholar
6 See Hamilton Green, Richard, ‘Alan of Lille 's De planctu Naturae,’ Speculum 31 (1956) 649–74, especially 664ff.; Robertson, D. W., A Preface to Chaucer (Princeton, N. J. 1962) 125 f.; Dronke, Dronke, ‘“L 'amor che move il sole e l'altre stelle,” ‘ Studi medievale 6 (1965) 389–422, especially 389 and 408; Hoffmann, Richard L., Ovid and the Canterbury Tales (Philadelphia 1966) 12–20; and Economou, George D., ‘The Two Venuses and Courtly Love,’ In Pursuit of Perfection: Courtly Love in Medieval Literature, ed. Ferrante, Joan M. and George Economou, D. (Port Washington, N. Y. and London 1975) 17-50. I am indebted to my colleagues Fred Ahl, Kathryn Hume, Carol V. Kaske, and Winthrop Wetherbee for providing me with some of the references used in the following section.Google Scholar
7 See Preller, Ludwig and Robert, Carl, Griechische Mythologie (4th rev. ed.; Berlin 1894) 1 .352ff. and 501ff.; Gruppe, Gruppe, Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte (Munich 1906) 2.1071f. and 1343ff.; and the articles ‘Aphrodite,’ ‘Eros,’ and ‘Urania’ in RE 1.2769ff., 6.484ff., 2. Reihe 9.A.1 939ff., and in Roscher, W. H., Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie (Leipzig 1884ff.) 1.399 and 1344 ff., 6.99.Google Scholar
8 Translated by Lamb, W. R. M., Plato: Lysis, Symposium, Gorgias (London and Cambridge, Mass. 1925) 109.Google Scholar
9 In addition to the works cited in the article ‘Pandemos’ in RE 18.3.509, see: Nicander, , fragment 9; Cornutus, Compendium theologiae graecae, ed. Lang, Lang (Leipzig 1881) 46; Lucian, , Amores 37, Laudatio Demosthenis 13, and the scholia ed. Rabe, Rabe (Leipzig 1906) 278 f.; Artemodoris, , Oneirocriticon 2.37; Photius, Bibliotheca 372B (PG 103.1367). Major Renaissance sources include: Ficino, Sopra l'amore 2.7 (Florence 1594) 39-42; della Mirandola, Pico, Commento sopra una canzona de amore composta da Girolamo Benivieni 2.8, in Opera omnia (Basel 1557-73; rpt. Hildesheim 1969) 1 .904; Conti, Conti, Mythologiae sive explicatio fabularum 4.13f. (Frankfurt 1588) 383–413, and (Lilius Gregorius) Giraldus of Ferrara, Historia de deis gentilium 13, in Opera omnia (Leyden 1696) 1 .387-90. On the topos in the Renaissance, see: Wind, Wind, Pagan Mysteries in the Renaissance (New Haven, Conn. 1958) 118 ff., and Panofsky, Panofsky, Problems in Titian, Mostly Iconographic (New York 1969) 109-38.Google Scholar
10 Denecke's assertion that the ‘ Cupido geminus' in Phaedra ‘heisst hier der ähnliche, das heisst: der Mutter ähnliche’ (101) is implausible.Google Scholar
11 Brown, Brown, ‘An Edition of an Anonymous Twelfth-Century Liber de natura deorum,’ Mediaeval Studies 34 (1972) 15. The attribution of Cupid's paternity to Jupiter is unusual, but see Euripides, Hyppolytus 534; Virgil, , Ciris 132; Apuleius, Metamorphoses 6.22; Lactantius, Institutiones divinae 1.17.9. The genealogy of Amor has been adapted from Servius (1.664) or Vatican Mythographer II (cap. 35). For a later summa of views on the various genealogies of Amor and Cupid, see Boccaccio, , Genealogie deorum gentilium libri, ed. Romano, Romano (Scrittori d'Italia 200-1; Bari 1951) I 46f., 83, 142-44, 148f., 152; II 451, 543-45.Google Scholar
12 ‘Pythagoras dicit duo esse hemisphaeria, quibus proprios deos assignat … et duas Veneres: unam supernam et alteram Libitinam ,’ ed. Jahnke, Jahnke (Leipzig 1898) 229f. Robertson's and Hoffmann's emphasis on the Pythagorean influence on Ovid (n. 6 supra) distorts the actual history of the topos considerably.Google Scholar
13 Edd. Thilo, Georg and Hagen, Hermann (Leipzig 1881) I 497. Servius' quotations from Afranius have been emended according to Ribbeck, Ribbeck, Scenicae romanorum poesis fragmenta (Leipzig 1898) II 198 and 228, and the fragment from Plautus' Bacchides according to the edition of Georg Goetz and Friedrich Schoell (Leipzig 1902) II 4.Google Scholar
14 ‘Magnum Cicero audaxque consilium suscepisse Graeciam dixit, quod Cupidinum et Amorum simulacra in gymnasiis consecrasset’(CSEL 19.74). Denecke's assertion that Cicero's ‘ “simulacra Cupidinum et Amorum'’ aber können sich nicht auf zwei Götter Amor und Cupido beziehen, da die Griechen einen ausgebildeten Kult des einen Eros hatten' (101) contradicts Pausanias' well-known description of devotion to Eros and Anteros in gymnasia (6.23.5). Google Scholar
15 See, for example, the Glossarium Ansileubi, ed. Lindsay, W. M. (Glossaria Latina 1; Paris 1926) 50.Google Scholar
16 See Diefenbach, Diefenbach, Glossarium latino-germanicum mediae et infimae aetatis (Frankfurt/Main 1857) 31 and 163; Eilhart, ed. Lichtenstein, Lichtenstein (Quellen und Forschungen 19; Strassburg 1877) 124.Google Scholar
17 ed. Dick, Dick (Leipzig 1925) 62f.Google Scholar
18 See Scottus, Annotationes in Marcianum, ed. Lutz, Cora E. (Cambridge, Mass. 1939) 67, and Remigius, Commentum in Martianum Capellam, ed. Lutz, Cora E. (Leyden 1962) I 180. Remigius introduces similar glosses on 69, 135f., and 195.Google Scholar
19 See Notkers des Deutschen Werke II: Martianus Capella, ed. Sehrt, E. H. and Taylor Starck (Halle/Saale 1935) 104, 176f., 199; Vatican Mythographer III, ed. Heinrich Bode, Georg, Scriptores rerum mythicarum latini tres (Celle 1834; rpt. Hildesheim 1968) I 239; von Mure, Konrad, Fabularius, seu repertorium vocabulorum (Basel ca. 1470), fol. 66r-66 v; Ridewall, John, ed. Liebeschütz, Hans, Fulgentius Metaforalis: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der antiken Mythologie im Mittelalter (Studien der Bibliothek Warburg 4; Leipzig 1926) 78; Walsingham, Walsingham, De archana [sic] deorum 10.11, ed. Robert, A. van Kluyve (Durham, N.C. 1968)156.Google Scholar
20 See Wetherbee, Wetherbee, Platonism and Poetry in the Twelfth Century (Princeton, N. J. 1972) 104 ff. especially 119-21, and 188-211; Bernard Silvestris (?), Commentum super sex libros Eneidos Virgilii, ed. Riedel, Riedel (Greifswald 1924) 9–12; Alan of Lille, ed. Wright, Wright, The Anglo-Latin Satirical Poets and Epigrammatists of the Twelfth Century (Rolls Series 59; London 1872) II 433.Google Scholar
21 Alton, E. H., ‘The Medieval Commentators on Ovid's Fasti,’ Hermathena 44 (1926) 136.Google Scholar
22 Carmina Burana: Die Liebeslieder , ed. Schumann, Schumann (Heidelberg 1941) 1.2.59. Schumann notes with some puzzlement that the capitalization of Amor ‘und damit das Nebeneinander von Cupido und Amor ist wohl nicht zu umgehen.’ He has, however, presented a catalogue of classical figures in 73.4a-4b in such a way as to avoid the problem: ‘Hoc Cupido concitus, / hoc amor innovatur’ (p. 44). Editorial reduction of Amor to amor or Cupido to cupido on the presumption of the synonymity of the two deities is not uncommon in medieval Latin texts.Google Scholar
23 On this distinction, see Lewis, C. S., The Allegory of Love (Oxford 1936; rpt. New York 1964) 48 ff., Robert Jauss, Hans, ‘Form und Auffassung der Allegorie in der Tradition der Psychomachia,’ Medium aevum vivum: Festschrift für Walther Bulst, edd. Jauss, H. R. and Dieter Schaller (Heidelberg 1960) 190.Google Scholar
24 For somewhat different comparisons of these episodes, see Zitzmann, Zitzmann, ‘Die Didohandlung in der frühhöfischen Aeneasdichtung,' Euphorion 46 (1952) 261–75; Quint, Quint, ‘Der Roman d'Eneas und Veldekes Eneit als frühhöfische Umgestaltungen der Aeneis,’ Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 73 (1954) 241-67.Google Scholar
25 See 243-246 supra. Denecke argues (100) that the motif of Venus' arrow is not classical and that Veldeke cannot have known of Cupid's torch from the one locus in Ovid's Amores: ‘So kennt der Dichter Venus und Cupido als Fremdnamen.’ In fact, however, the arrow of Venus is known from Greek antiquity onwards. See Preller-Robert, , Griechische Mythologie 1.385 n. 1, and 503. The motif has become quite popular by the time of the Carmina Burana (76.6, 22; 92.25; 107.26; 148.2a; 148a.2; 162a). Similarly, the motif of Cupid's torch has several classical antecedents and was assured widespread popularity during the Middle Ages by Isidore of Seville's Etymologiae (8.11.80) and Rabanus Maurus' De universo (PL 111.432).Google Scholar
26 Veldeke emphasizes the external agency of Dido's death even further by attributing it also to the machinations of the devil (80.27-29). Google Scholar
27 Although Ovid's description is the immediate source of the portrait in the Roman, the provenance of the boiste or buhse and its allegory has yet to be determined. Neither the (Paris 1913) 144 ff., nor the iconographic thesis of Julius Schwietering, ‘Typologisches in mittelalterlicher Dichtung,’ Vom Werden des deutschen Geistes: Festgabe Gustav Ehrismann, edd. Merker, Paul and Stammler, W. (Berlin 1925) 44f., is convincing.Google Scholar
28 Cf. the description of Dido's love in 35.37ff., cited on 248 supra. There the ‘do’ clauses merely indicate the relationship between the first meeting of Dido and Eneas and the intervention of Venus and Cupid; here they indicate a progression from Lavinia's perceptions to the allegorization of her emotions. Google Scholar
29 On the topoi of the Liebesmonolog, see Bussmann, Bussmann, ‘Der Liebesmonolog im frühhöfischen Epos,' Werk-Typ-Situation: zu poetologischen Bedingungen in der älteren deutschen Literatur , ed. Glier, Glier (Stuttgart 1969) 45–63.Google Scholar
30 Venus no longer wields an instrument, but modifies Eneas' emotions in a manner similar to that commanded by Ephesians 5.28: ‘Ita et viri debent diligere uxores suas ut corpora sua.’ The shift in emphasis from external to internal motivation in the Dido and Lavinia episodes is thus paralleled by a similar demythologization from classical to Christian motifs, which is also indicated by the form of Lavinia's and Eneas’ prayers. Google Scholar
31 See Wolff, Wolff, ‘Die mythologischen Motive in der Liebesdarstellung des höfischen Romans,' ZfdA 84 (1952/53) 47–70, and Plate, Plate, ‘Natura Parens Amoris,' Euphorion 67 (1973) 1-23.Google Scholar
32 Schneider, Schneider, ‘Heinrich von Veldeke: Die “Strophenpaare ” MF 60, 29 + 65, 5 und MF 61, 18 + 61, 25,’ Interpretationen mittelhochdeutscher Lyrik, ed. Jungbluth, Jungbluth (Bad Homburg, Berlin, Zurich 1969) 83.Google Scholar
33 This article was presented in shortened form to the Medieval Studies Section at the convention of the Midwestern Modern Language Association in November 1974. I am indebted to Professor Steven Wailes for his criticism and to Professor Dennis Green for directing my interest to this topic. Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by