George Veditz: The Hohenstaufen Era of German Literature

Delivered By G.W. Veditz, at the Presentation Day Exercises of the National Deaf-Mute College, Wednesday, May 7th, 1884.

In the period from the middle of the twelfth to the end of the thirteenth century, the German race reached a height of national glory which it has never at any time surpassed. The ninth, tenth and eleventh centuries cover a formative period, when, through its conflicts internal and external, the nation was developing its strength and preparing itself for the great part it was to play.

In the twelfth century, when we find the Hohenstaufen line swaying the sceptre of Charlemagne, the nation had emerged into a period of comparative quiet. It had undergone a complete regeneration. Old doctrines and old habits had been swept away by the influx of new ideas and new fashions, and an active vitality was infused, giving strength for the effort that was to be put forth.

The language had undergone the same vicissitudes as the people. It had before been broken up into the dialects of the various dukedoms and provinces; but, with the people it too had become settled and unified, the powerful example of the imperial house giving the ascendancy to the Suabian tongue.

Literature then left the seclusion of the monasteries, and turned to the more genial atmosphere of the royal court and of the castles of the nobility. Hitherto, the Church had wielded the greatest influence, but now the knight–the beau ideal of chivalrous manhood–became the central figure in the popular mind; and the monotonous chant of the monkish rhymer gave place to the livelier and more stirring song of the knightly minne-singer.

At the same time the Crusades and the Wars of the Guelphs and Ghibellines gave a stimulus to the martial and chivalrous spirit of the people, and furnished the theme for many a beautiful song. Moreover, the magnificent court of Frederick Barbarossa entertained with princely hospitality the brilliant and brave from far and near. The beauty of the women of this court, the splendor of its festivals and tournaments, attracted crowds of noble guests from Brittany and Flanders, Normandy and Provence; and the aspiring German mind being thus brought into contact with the ardent and chivalrous spirit of the south, caught the fire, and adopted with enthusiastic eagerness the fashions of the visitors. The Norman trouveres taught their lays and virelays to the German minstrel; and the Provencal singers of "Tristan and Isolde" and of Enid and Geraint found themselves eclipsed by their own pupils. In short, German literature blossomed forth into a vigorous and beautiful spring–the intense life and feeling of the time finding its expression in a burst of lyric and epic song, which even the golden age of the last century has not surpassed.

The sons and grandsons of the great Frederick were all cast in his heroic mould; and under them the nation advanced in the career so gloriously begun. Thus it is that the German of today not only looks upon the period of the Hohenstaufen of Suabian dynasty as one of greatest splendor in the annals of his country, but also gives its name to the first era of a distinctively German literature.

The bard who sounded the first note heralding the literary pageant of the era was Heinrich von Veldeck, who, in his version of the "Æneid," does not scruple to make

"Pan to Moses lend his Pagan horn,"

metamorphosing Virgil's Greek and Trojan princes into adventurous German knights. But he is the first truly German poet of the age, and was followed by a long array of brilliant signers, lyric and epic–by Walther von der Vogelweide, Ulrich von Lichtenstein, Ofterdingen, Tannhauser, Hartman von der Aue, Gotfried von Strasburg and Wolfram von Eschenbach.

Of the lyric poets–the so-called minne-signers, or minstrels–Walther von der Vogelweide is the acknowledged chief. He was born about 1170, of poor but noble parentage. His youth was spent among the Tyrolean hills, whose primeval beauty early quickened the poetic soul within him–

"As yet a child and all unknown to fame,
He lisped in numbers for the numbers came."

When a youth of twenty, he left his native hills, and, attaching himself to the imperial court, was from that time, till his death in 1227, one of the conspicuous figures on the national stage. He fought under the banners of the Empire in Palestine and Italy, and as an ardent Ghibelline took an active part in the politics of the day, making fierce and bitter attacks upon the corruptions in the church.

His poems breathe an intense love of nature and of truth, and are singularly pure and elevated in sentiment. His earlier songs fairly overflow with youthful luxuriance and gaiety, but as he grows older his verse assumes a more thoughtful and graver tone, and finally exhibits the serious and philosophic temper of old age.

Of the minne-signers, Walther is the best known to the modern German reader. He is inseparably connected with the "Minstrel War of Castle Wartburg," and, as our Longfellow intimates in his beautiful ode on the old bard, his very name suggests the springtime meadow with its flowers and its song of the lark and nightingale. The productions of this grand old master are every day becoming better and better known to the German world, and they deserve to be–they are German to the core.

Besides Walther, we have a long and noble line of other minnesigners, whose poems have come down to us, and attest the marvelous literary activity of the age–ranging in excellence from the clumsy Bacchanalian song to the pure and impassioned lay addressed to the Virgin.

But we find the most interesting and distinctive feature of the period in the metrical romance, or the tale of knightly adventure in song. These works are numerous and varied, the subjects being drawn from already existing Provencal or Norman models. The stories had a tendency to group themselves about illustrious historical names, some having Alexander, some Charlemagne, and some the British Arthur as their central figure. They are vital with the spirit of chivalry, varying in dignity and interest from the true epic poem to the mere commonplace story of love and adventure.

The greatest of the epic writers is without question Wolfram von Eschenbach, a noble Franconian knight, the companion and friendly rival of Walther von der Vogelweide. He has left us two great epics, "Titurel, or the Guardians of the Grail," and the "Parsifal," besides the charming fragmentary love tale of "Sigune." They form together the noblest relics of old German poetry, and are perhaps the first works of European literature which venture upon a profound analysis of human nature.

"Titurel" and "Parsifal" are both based on the old Armorican legends of the Holy Grail. "Parsifal" is the greatest work both of the poet and the age. It is the story of a man of noble and exalted mind, open-hearted and enthusiastic, at once credulous and skeptical, who falls into doubt and is driven by this doubt into a fierce despair, which makes him renounce both God and man. But after a bitter struggle, his doubt gives place to conviction, his obstinate pride to a noble humility; and henceforth we see him in an earnest pursuit of truth and eternal life, in the search for the Holy Grail. Wolfram makes him the hero not only of physical strife, but also of the nobler struggle of the soul with the world, of pride with humility, of faith with skepticism.

This poem is the most brilliant production of this brilliant period, and its great popularity in Germany at the present day—shown by the many editions it has passed through—gives witness to its extraordinary merit. Some German critics even place it on a level with Goethe's Faust, in so far as a comparison can be drawn between an epic and a drama.

Next to Wolfram we have Gotfried von Strasburg and Hartman von der Aue. These three tower high above the throng of their contemporaries. Gotfried, in his "Tristan and Isolde," and Hartman, in ["Iwein,"] his "Gawain," and in ["Erec,"] his "Enid and Geraint," rise far above all modern poets who have handled the same subjects, and are but faintly echoed by Scott and Coleridge and Tennyson, and by our own Lowell.

Though the works in question are in some sense imitations of foreign models, yet the greater among their authors had genius enough to raise them to the level and dignity of truly original works. There is also a group or cycle of epics of genuine native growth; and of these are the "Gudrun" and the "Niebelungen Lay." They are based on the ancient legends of the Teutonic race, which it brought with it from the frozen north. They celebrate the most renowned old German heroes, and they are poems on which the Germans look with a just pride, calling the "Niebelungen" their "Iliad" and the "Gudrun" their "Odyssey." They are familiar to English readers by means of translations and critiques; and, moreover, both they and Wolfram's and Gotfried's peerless songs have been made the subject of the grandest of Richard Wagner's compositions—the "Niebelungen Ring," and the "Parsifal," and "Tristan and Isolde."

This splendid era of German literature falls wholly within the Hohenstaufen period, and it seems as if its existence was bound up with the life of this princely house. The rout of Tagliacozza, in 1268, meant not only the death of Conradin, the last Hohenstaufen, but also the blight of the literary tree that had flourished in such beauty and splendor under this dynasty. The decline was rapid, for the very heart was dead. The lyricists lost all the grace and passion of Walther and Lichtenstein, and their songs became inane and degraded, pandering to the sensual taste of the time. The soulless meister-song succeeded to the lays of the old minstrels; while such epic poets as still existed, Rudolph von Ems and Konrad von Wurzburg, complain bitterly of the hostility and bad taste of the people, and seem at the same time to be aware of their own inferiority. This literary barrenness lasted for two hundred years, until Luther, at Wittenberg and Worms, roused anew the heart of the nation, and modern German literature begins.

One of the most marked features of the present time is our interest in the past. Our old literatures have ardent and loving students, who daily find new treasures of the richest poetry which have long lain concealed. Percy and Scott have resuscitated the exquisite old English ballads, while Scott in his "Triermain," Coleridge in his "Christabel," and Tennyson in his "Idyls," have made the heroes of the Round Table as popular now as they were in the heyday of chivalry.

In Germany, the comparative poverty of its literature makes the so-long-unknown gems of the Hohenstaufen time, a gift of priceless value, and they now shine refulgent in the literary diadem of the nation. Through the genius of Richard Wagner, Bodmer, Von der Hagen, and a host of others, these old works are becoming daily better known and daily dearer to the patriotic German heart. And so should it be. Let the present and the past in literature always confront and interpret each other, and, in the words of the English Laureate,

"Their echoes roll from soul to soul,
And grow forever and forever."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Commentary: All Universities are Cultural Institutions

Jordan said in 1998: “becoming a completely bilingual ASL-English community” is the goal of Gallaudet University

The following letter to the community by I. King Jordan in 1998 shows that the idea that bilingualism is the goal at Gallaudet is not controversial and should have never been in doubt. (See the underlined sentence in the 9th paragraph of Jordan’s open letter, below.)

However, in his 1998 letter, Jordan hedged his statement about bilingualism by embedding it within an explicitly anti-intellectual frame. In an brazenly attempted act of intellectual prestidigitation, Jordan introduces a non-sequitur, attempting to imply that the existence of “many kinds of signing and many kinds of signers” is something that allegedly obligates us to avoid debating “what it should be named,” so that we can supposedly “devise a valid and legitimate method to describe and evaluate what that practice is.”

But, bilingualism is bilingualism. There is no such thing as “many different kinds of X, Y, Z” that would erase the fact that what exists at Gallaudet is bilingualism. The concept of bilingualism encompasses all of the ASL-English communication that occurs, whatever its style, and whatever its variation. There is no need for acrimony on this point. This is not, or should not, be controversial at all.

This (in 1998) was all part and parcel of Jordan’s attempt to “deculturize” Gallaudet. He wanted us to believe that Gallaudet was not created by culturally Deaf people in the mid-to-late 1800’s, and that somehow nothing important happened at Gallaudet until a brand new “disability rights” movement sprang forth, ex nihilo, in 1988. As reflected in the comments of a Gallaudet administrator, Jordan attempted to put forth the untenable idea that Gallaudet is not a cultural institution, but instead is an “academic institution.” (See PDF page 48 of THIS PAPER).

But there is no such thing as academics outside of culture. An academic institution is a type of cultural institution, as someone should have explained to Jordan years ago.

Likewise, it makes no sense to stress the idea of “communication” without also stressing the concept of language. Humans communicate by using language, and they do so within a cultural context. Language and culture go hand in hand.

Gallaudet is a great social laboratory, and in the history of the social evolution of deaf people, American Sign Language is the answer to the question of how deaf people can best communicate in lectures and spontaneous conversation.

ASL is the deaf community’s answer to the question of visual communication. No amount of attempted intellectual prestidigitation is going to change that.

Jordan used the phrase “global educational and cultural center” in his infamous January 2007 commentary,{fn 1} as the phrase was included in the 2005 version of the Strategic Goals. Jordan’s use of that phrase does not indicate that he understood that educational institutions are cultural institutions. On the contrary, Jordan consistently showed over the years that he had the mistaken belief that education and culture were two separate, but related, things.

According to Jordan’s (mistaken) view, Deaf culture is (supposedly) something “extra” that happens in the dorms, hallways, or in stage plays at the theater at Gallaudet, or (he thought) also in Deaf people’s living rooms at home or in Deaf clubs. Jane Fernandes also shared this misconception, as proven by her January 2007 ASHA interview.

When Jordan said that Gallaudet should be a “cultural center,” he was envisioning culture as an extra aspect, and he did not understand that education itself is a cultural pursuit. By throwing in the word “global,” he was playing a political trick, i.e., he was attempting to minimize that perception of Gallaudet being the center of Deaf culture by resorting to his usual trick of resorting to broad generalizations.

This was the whole gimmick of the 2005 version of the Strategic Goals. The terms “ASL,” “American Sign Language” or “Deaf culture” do not appear in that version. (Amazingly, even the word “sign” does not appear!) Goal #6 stated: “....nurtures and strengthens its position as a global educational and cultural center for people who are deaf and hard of hearing...” (Emphasis added.) What does the word “position” mean in that sentence?

By using vague and generalized language, and hedge words like “position”, Jordan was attempting to avoid recognizing the fact that Gallaudet itself is a cultural institution, just as all academic institutions are cultural institutions. Every school and university in America is cultural in nature, i.e., is part of American culture. It’s an obvious and uncontroversial fact that Gallaudet itself is a cultural institution, the whole institution, not just the dorms, hallways, and theater.

Also, it is an obvious an uncontroversial fact that Gallaudet was created by culturally Deaf people in the 1800’s as a means of establishing equal treatment for Deaf people. The federal government had given land grants through the Morrill Act of 1862. To be fair to Deaf people, Edward Gallaudet argued that a college for Deaf people should be established, and this is why Gallaudet was established in the first place.

Jordan, through his constant attempted smears and distortions and misuse of language, wanted the world to believe that there was a “small but vocal minority” made up of wild-eyed extremists who were (allegedly) “denying the free exchange of ideas”, etc. etc. All of this was patently untrue, of course. It was false propaganda which actually showed that Jordan was the person who had Machiavellian intentions, not anyone else.

It’s time to stop apologizing for things which should be accepted as uncontroversially true. Gallaudet is a cultural institution. It was created by culturally Deaf people who are expansive in their outlook, not inwardly oriented, and who invite others to join in. Gallaudet is a bilingual institution and that’s the way it should be, and there’s nothing unusual or controversial about that.

[End commentary]

Footnote 1: A near-preponderance of the evidence suggests that the then-director of the in-house publishing division of the university, under Jordan, was the ghost-writer of the 2007 commentary.

He retired in August 2010, nineteen months after Jordan's full retirement from the faculty.

Addendum (August 2, 2018):

Quoting Chad Wellmon (emphasis added):

Along with the church and the state, universities are among the oldest and most central social institutions of Europe and western culture. From their beginnings in Bologna, Paris, and Oxford, universities have always been cultural and social institutions that created, evaluated, and authorized knowledge. These activities brought them into complex relationships with a broader culture, be it thirteenth-century Paris or nineteenth century Berlin. But universities have always had clear sources from which to draw their norms, ends, and virtues, which they could then adopt and adapt to clarify their own particular ends.

Unquote

SEE:

https://chadwellmon.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/wellmon_lo.pdf

An Open Letter to the Gallaudet Community, from President Jordan

On The Green — A publication for Gallaudet faculty, teachers, and staff

Gallaudet University, 800 Florida Ave. NE, Washington, DC 20002-3695

Issue: December 9, 1998; Vol. 29 No. 9

Gallaudet’s future has occupied much of my thinking in recent months. While none of us can predict with certainty what the next fifteen or twenty five years will bring, all of us understand the realities which have already begun to change what we do, and how we do it.

The three primary realities that are shaping Gallaudet’s future are ones I have mentioned often in various campus-wide communications: increased accessibility for deaf and hard of hearing people, the rapid growth of technology, and demographic shifts in the country’s deaf and hard of hearing population.

Accessibility and a heightened public awareness that deaf and hard of hearing people can indeed do anything but hear has led to dramatic changes in all our lives. It is now the law of the land that we have as many educational and almost as many career choices as hearing people. And with the growing number of educational opportunities online through ‘virtual universities,’ those choices will continue to increase. If Gallaudet is to remain the University that provides the best educational, cultural and social environment for deaf and hard of hearing K-12, undergraduate and graduate students, we must offer excellent and accessible programs at all levels.

Technology’s tremendous impact on the lives of deaf and hard of hearing people cannot be overstated and will continue to increase dramatically. Yet the technology supporting email, world wide web, pagers, relay services, captioned media and real time captioning, is relatively new. Ensuring that Gallaudet stays current will be critical in preparing our students for a world we cannot now envision.

Changing demographics, however, will no doubt have the greatest impact on the future Gallaudet. We already know that a major shift is occurring in the pool of students from which Gallaudet recruits. Increasingly, students entering Gallaudet are diverse in culture, ethnicity, age, educational background, communication skills and language use. This cultural mix enriches the University and enhances our educational mission immensely. It also challenges each of us to help create a community that welcomes, embraces and knows how to educate an increasingly diverse student body.

We can all point with pride to Gallaudet programs and practices that are already responding to these new realities. Changes in all aspects of technology, increased efforts to improve K-12 education throughout the country through our national mission activities, new undergraduate programs to help students make the transition from high school to college, and new graduate programs are only a few of many examples I could point to.

Fortunately, the University has already defined the framework for these and other needed changes in the Gallaudet University Vision Statement and the statement on Sign Communication at Gallaudet University. Developed after extensive discussion and input from students, faculty, teachers, and staff and approved by the Board of Trustees, both reaffirm the basic tenets that must continue to shape the Gallaudet University of the future — broad educational opportunities for deaf and hard of hearing students through the best visual learning environment. I remain committed to these principles and to leading the University Community in implementing them to the fullest extent possible.

That effort cannot succeed, however, unless the Gallaudet community resolves an issue that is at our very heart: barrier-free communication. As I have stated often, I am committed to maintaining an environment on campus that encourages the candid expression of ideas no matter how unpopular or controversial they may be. Debates on how all of us communicate with each other began more than a hundred years ago and no doubt will continue for a hundred years to come. That is healthy and welcome. However, the last decade of focussed discourse has not resulted in agreement on a course of action that ensures that, in every situation, we all understand and we all can be understood.

Although becoming a completely bi-lingual ASL-English community will remain our long-term goal, we must recognize the reality of the Gallaudet community today and in the future, a community that encompasses many kinds of signing and many kinds of signers. A number of phrases have been used to describe effective signing at Gallaudet — language, ASL broadly described, conceptually accurate signed English, or signing with appropriate ASL features. What these phrases have in common is the attempt to name a practice, to describe what we actually do in Gallaudet classrooms and meeting rooms and offices so that we understand each other. [Emphasis added.]

Rather than debate what it should be named, Gallaudet must devise a valid and legitimate method to describe and evaluate what that practice is, must set up the instructional support programs needed to achieve it, must require all members of the campus community to attend instructional programs so they become proficient in it, and must make it the norm at all University-sponsored events. The Sign Communication Proficiency Interview (SCPI) alone has not been up to this task; it must be replaced with a more comprehensive system.

It is my responsibility to make sure Gallaudet is prepared for what the future holds. To do that, I believe we must act quickly, both to resolve current concerns and to plan for future changes.

Planning to Achieve Barrier-Free Communication I am resolved that we find a University-wide solution to the ‘communication issue’ as quickly as possible and move on. To that end:

I will convene a meeting on February 3, 1999 with board, faculty, teacher, staff, and student representatives to discuss how the Communication Statement can be implemented more quickly and to generate other ideas on how Gallaudet can live up to our promise of barrier-free communication. The outstanding work on sign evaluation already initiated by the University Faculty will help inform our discussions that day.

I will then create a campus-wide implementation team whose charge will be to review those ideas and examine the entire range of signing and evaluation methods — the faculty sign evaluation that was used for many years, the SCPI, a language proficiency interview, student and peer evaluations, departmental and unit evaluations — and recommend an evaluation and training plan that is flexible and comprehensive enough to serve the entire campus.

My goal is to have a new training and evaluation system ready to be tested by the beginning of the fall semester of 2000.

During any transition, I will work closely with all the Vice Presidents to ensure that sign evaluation and personnel actions can continue smoothly and legally. I will also direct them to make implementation of the A-RAP Supporting Objective on communication skills (SSO 1.5) a major priority for the remainder of FY 1999 and FY 2000 so that the University will be prepared to provide appropriate training for individuals and units.

Preparing for Gallaudet’s Future Gallaudet must also be prepared for the changes that will have great impact not only on this university but on higher education for all American deaf and hard of hearing students.

In the fall of 1999, I will convene a meeting of national leaders in post-secondary education for individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing so we can share our experience with technological, demographic and legal realities and identify ways we can collaborate to assure that all our programs continue to serve our students well.

In the fall of 2000, Gallaudet will sponsor a pre-Deaf Way II conference to discuss the recent history of the American deaf and hard of hearing community. The conference will bring together the best thinkers in education, history and the social sciences to examine the current and future impact of recent and ongoing changes on the lives of all of us who are deaf or hard of hearing.

What makes Gallaudet unique is barrier-free visual communication. That will always be at the heart of all we do. It is vital that every member of the Gallaudet community embody this ideal. We must also be aware of the coming critical changes which will affect every institution of higher education in the United States, and must free up our collective creative energy to respond to them. I ask each of you to join me in this important undertaking.

I. King Jordan

December, 1998

“ON THE GREEN” BACK ISSUE ON GALLAUDET.EDU:

http://pr.gallaudet.edu/otg/BackIssues.asp?ID=138