Abstract
In the late twelfth century and throughout the thirteenth century, Middle High German literature manifests a new readiness to reflect on its own nature, status, and function.1 This collective theoretical reflection—most pronounced in narrative works—consists of a variety of strands. Some texts engage directly with the nature of fictionality, either by highlighting the experiential opposition between life and literature, or by expressing outright unease with the supposed mendacity of fiction,2 whilst others concern themselves with related issues of authorship and narration, including the appropriate adaptation of foreign language sources and the formation of a literary canon in German.3 Although one finds relatively little theoretical reflection on genre, there is an abundance of intertextual reference, particularly within Arthurian romance, as well as outright criticism of other texts, indicating an on-going concern amongst later writers as to how to position their output favorably in relation to earlier, established works.4 These various considerations have their specific and understandable parts to play within the development of Middle High German as a literary language, but they also testify to an ambivalent fascination with the written medium itself
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Walter Haug, Literaturtheorie im deutschen Mittelalter. Von den Anfängen bis zum Ende des 13. Jahrhunderts, 2nd edn. (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1992) provides a compelling overview.
Hartmann von Aue, Iwein 54–59, ed. Ludwig Wolf based on the text by Georg Friedrich Benecke and Karl Lachmann, 7th edn., 2 vols. (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1968) suggests that it is better to hear stories about Arthur than to have experienced his reign firsthand. Thomasin von Zirclaria, Der Wälsche Gast 1121–1126, ed. Heinrich Rückert, Bibliothek der gesamten deutschen National-Literatur 30 (Quedlinburg: G. Basse, 1852); reprinted with a foreword and index by Friedrich Neumann, Deutsche Neudrucke: Texte des Mittelalters (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1965) addresses the truth-value of fiction: ich schilt die âventiure niht, / sit uns ze liegen geschiht / von der âventiure rat, / wan si bezeichenunge hât / der zuht und der wârheit: / daz wâr man mit lüge kleit. [I do not criticize stories on account of the fact that they impel us to tell lies, for they signify breeding and truth: that which is true is clothed with lies.] On fiction as integumentum [a layer of lies concealing an inner moral truth], see also Harald Haferland, Höfische Interaktion. Interpretationen zur höfischen Epik und Didaktik um 1200. Forschungen zur Geschichte der älteren deutschen Literatur 10 (Munich: Fink, 1989), pp. 14–18; Haug, Literaturtheorie, pp. 228–240;
Gertrud Grünkorn, Die Fiktionalität des höfischen Roman um 1200, Philologische Studien und Quellen 129 (Berlin: Erich Schmidt, 1994), pp. 52–60 and 193–194; and Christoph Huber, “Zur mittelalterlichen Roman-Hermeneutik: Noch einmal Thomasin von Zerklaere und das Integumentum,” in German Narrative Literature of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries. Studies Presented to Roy Wisbey on his Sixty-fifth Birthday, ed. Volker Honemann (Tübingen: Nimeyer, 1994), pp. 27–38.
For the ways in which Middle High German texts thematize the nature and extent of their dependence on French or Latin sources, see Carl Lofmark, The Authority of the Source in Middle High German Narrative Poetry, Bithell Series of Dissertations 5 (London: Institute of Germanic Studies, 1981), especially pp. 48–87. In the twelfth century, the most striking indication of a sense of literary canon in Middle High German is found in the catalogue of narrative and lyric poets in Gottfried von Straßburg’s Tristan 4621–4820, ed. and German trans. Rüdiger Krohn based on the text by Friedrich Ranke, 3rd edn., 2 vols., Universal-Bibliothek 4471–4472 (Stuttgart: Reclam, 1984). For the further development of the concept of authorship during the thirteenth century, see
Sebastian Coxon, The Presentation of Authorship in Medieval German Narrative Literature 1220–1290 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).
See Dennis Howard Green, Medieval Listening and Reading: The Primary Reception of German Literature 800–1300 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).
Wolfram von Eschenbach, Willehalm 219–20, ed. Joachin Heinzle (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1994). The narrator of Willehalm shares the personality and mannerisms of his Parzival-counterpart. The fact that he specifically incorporates authorship of Parzival into his identity (Willehalm 4,19–20) encourages the audience to regard the two narrators as a single figure. By contrast, in Wolfram’s Titurel, the narrator is much more withdrawn and less inclined to impart personal information about himself.
For a survey of interpretations of the apparent claims to illiteracy, see Wolfram von Eschenbach, Parzival, ed. Nellmann, 2:517, and Joachim Bumke, Wolfram von Eschenbach, Sammlung Metzler 36, 7th edn. (Stuttgart: Metzler, 1997), pp. 5–8 and p. 25. It should be noted that these enigmatic claims do not stop Wolfram from operating with a complex configuration of written authorities in Parzival: Wolfram’s actual source, Chrétien de Troyes, is said to have told the tale incorrectly (827,1–2), by contrast with the invented authority Kyot (827,3–4), whose wide-ranging research supposedly included both the chronicles of the house of Anjou (455,2–24) and the astronomical writings of the heathen Flegetanis (454,9–455,1).
Albrecht Hagenlocher, “Littera Meretrix. Brun von Schönebeck und die Autorität der Schrift im Mittelalter,” Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 118 (1989): 131–163.
Brun von Schönebeck, Das Hohe Lied 953–956, ed. Arwed Fischer, Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart 198 (Tübingen: Litterarischer Verein, 1893). For the importance of Wolfram for Brun, see Annette Volfing, “The Song of Songs as Fiction: Brun von Schönebeck’s Das Hohe Lied,” in Vir ingenio mirandus. Studies Presented to John L. Flood, ed. William Jones, Göppinger Arbeiten zur Germanistik 710 (Göppingen: Kümmerle, 2003), pp. 137–154.
Albrechts [von Scharfenberg] Jüngerer Titurel, ed. Werner Wolf (I–II,2) and Kurt Nyholm (II,2–III,2), 5 vols. (I; II,1; II,2; III,1; III,2), Deutsche Texte des Mittelalters 45, 55, 61, 73, 77 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1955–1992). Very little is known about the identity of Albrecht. It was previously assumed that this Albrecht was identical with Albrecht von Scharfenberg, a figure associated with a work on Merlin and with various other texts. Hence the first three volumes of the critical edition (ed. Wolf) name Albrecht von Scharfenberg as the author of the J.T. However, whilst it cannot be entirely ruled out that these two shadowy authors are one and the same, there is very little positive evidence supporting the assumption. Accordingly, the last two volumes (ed. Nyholm) simply present J.T. as the work of Albrecht. For further discussion of this issue, see Dietrich Huschenbett, “Albrecht von Scharfenberg,” in Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters. Verfasserlexikon, ed. Kurt Ruh, 2nd edn., 10 vols. (Berlin: de Gruyter: 1978–1999), 1:200–206.
The complexities of the manuscript tradition are such that there remains some doubt as to the exact number of strophes forming part of the J.T. The work is represented by eleven more or less complete manuscripts, forty-five fragments, and one early print: these fall into two distinct recensions, of which the first (I) forms the basis for the critical edition. The second recension (II) is regarded by Kurt Nyholm, “Pragmatische Isotypien im ‘Jüngeren Titurel.’ Überlegungen zur Autor-Hörer/ Leser-Situation,” Wolfram-Studien 8 (1984): 127 [120–137] as a lectio facilior, not least because it simplifies the narratorial situation by omitting strophe 5961, with its crucial reference to ‘Albrecht.’ The critical edition runs to 6327 numbered strophes but also includes certain additional strophes. These blocks of additional material include: 1) a forty-two-strophe Marienlob [praise of Mary] inserted after J.T. 439; 2) six strophes on the nature of dragon-people inserted after J.T. 3363; 3) eighteen further closing strophes inserted after J.T. 6327; 4) the so-called “Hinweisstrophen” [reference strophes] (J.T. 449 A and 1172 A) and “Kunststrophen” [poetological strophes] (J.T. 499 B–F). With the possible exception of J.T. 1172 A (for which see n30 below), the Hinweisstrophen and Kunststrophen are generally regarded as forming part of the J.T. The authenticity of the other additional strophes is more dubious, although Kurt Nyholm, Studien zum sogenannten geblümten Stil, Acta Academiae Aboensis, ser. A, Humaniora 33.2 (Åbo: Åbo akademi, 1971), pp. 53–56 does regard the Marienlob as the work of Albrecht. For an overview of the manuscript tradition, see
Dietrich Huschenbett, “Albrecht, Dichter des ’Jüngeren Titurel,” in Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters. Verfasserlexikon, ed. Kurt Ruh, 2nd edn., 10 vols. (Berlin: de Gruyter: 1978–1999), 1:161–163 [1:158–173]; for a more detailed discussion, see the introduction to the critical edition (I:xliv–cviii); and also
Walter Röll, Studien zu Text und Überlieferung des sogenannten Jüngeren Titurel, Germanische Bibliothek, reihe 3, Untersuchungen und Einzeldarstelllungen (Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1964). A further important companion document to the J.T.—not included in the critical edition—is the so-called “Verfasserfragment” (Vf), which is most readily accessible in the transcription by
Andrea Lorenz, Der Jüngere Titurel als Wolfram-Fortsetzung. Eine Reise zum Mittelpunkt des Werks, Deutsche Literatur von den Anfängen bis 1700 36 (Bern: Peter Lang, 2002), pp. 68–72. In this text Albrecht, rather than operating with a ‘Wolfram’-mask, represents himself as an author reacting to the work of Wolfram. The Vf is discussed in chapter 4 of this monograph.
On the overall phenomenon, see Hedda Ragotzky, Studien zur Wolfram-Rezeption. Die Entstehung und Verwandlung der Wolfram-Rolle in der deutschen Literatur des 13. Jahrhunderts, Studien zur Poetik und geschichte der Literatur 20 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1971). Note in particular the presentation of ‘Wolfram’ as a protagonist within the riddle contests (‘Rätselspiele’) of the Wartburgkrieg: here he engages in conflict with Klingsor, a figure based nominally on one of “his” own characters from Parzival (Clinschor). For general information on this part of the ‘Wartburgkrieg,’ see Burghart Wachinger, Sängerkrieg. Untersuchungen zur Spruchdichtung des 13. Jahrhunderts, Münchener Texte und Untersuchungen 42 (Munich: Beck, 1973), pp. 83–89; and the same author, “Wartburgkrieg,” in Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters. Verfasserlexikon, ed. Kurt Ruh, 2nd edn., 10 vols. (Berlin: de Gruyter: 1978–1999), 10:746–750 [10:740–766]. For literary parallels between the Wartburgkrieg and the J.T., see Lorenz, Wolfram-Forsetzung, pp. 138–141.
The J.T.’s model of using a ‘Wolfram’-narrator is also taken up by the Göttweiger Trojanerkrieg (dated ca. 1270–1300) and by Johann von Würzburg’s Wilhelm von Österreich (dated 1314). In the latter work, the narrator even switches from calling himself ‘Wolfram’ to calling himself ‘Albrecht,’ by analogy with the J.T. See Cora Dietl, Minnerede, Roman und historia. “Der Wilhelm von Österreic” Johanns von Würzburg, Germanistische Forschungen N.F. 87 (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1990), pp. 268–272.
For an overview of Arthurian romance in German, see Volker Mertens, Der deutsche Artusroman, Universal-Bibliothek 17609 (Stuttgart: Reclam, 1998);
Martin H. Jones and Roy Wisbey (eds.), Chrétien de Troyes and the German Middle Ages, Arthurian Studies 26 (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1993);
William Henry Jackson and Silvia Ranawake (eds.), The Arthur of the Germans: The Arthurian Legend in Medieval German and Dutch Literature (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2002). For the development of Grail literature in a European context, see
Richard Barber, The Holy Grail. Imagination and Belief (London: Allen Lane, 2004). For German Grail romances, see
Volker Mertens, Der Gral: Mythos und Literatur, Universal-Bibliothek 18261 (Stuttgart: Reclam, 2003).
Whilst the Nibelungenlied-strophe consists of four long lines each separated by a cesura, the Titurel-strophe follows the pattern 4+4a / 4 + 6a / 6b / 4+6b, with no cesura in the third line. The J.T.-strophe represents a further refinement of the Titurel-strophe, in that it includes internal rhymes in the first two lines (4a+4b / 4a+6b / 6c / 4 + 6c). Cf. Mertens, Artusroman, p. 286; also Wolfram von Eschenbach, Titurel. Text—Übersetzung—Stellenkommentar, ed. Helmut Brackert and Stephan Fuchs-Jolie (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), pp. 21–23 for metrical details and for discussion about the thematic connections between Titurel and the Nibelungenlied.
Notably, Hanspeter Brode, Untersuchungen zum Sprach- und Werkstil des “Jüngeren Titurel” von Albrecht von Schafenberg, Dissertation (Freiburg in Breigau, 1966); Ragotzky, Wolfram-Rezeption, pp. 93–141; Klaus Zatloukal, Salvaterre. Studien zu Sinn und funktion des Gralsbereiches im “Jüngeren Titurel,” Wiener Arbeiten zur germanistischen Altertumskunde und Philologie 12 (Vienna: Halosar, 1978);
Dietrich Huschenbett, Albrechts “Jüngerer Titurel.” Zu Stil und Komposition, Medium Aevum: Philologische Studien 35 (Munich: Fink, 1979); with particular reference to sexual ethics, Herbert Guggenberger, Albrechts Jüngerer Titurel: Studien zur Minnethematik und zur Werkkonzeption, Göppinger Arbeiten zur Germanistik 566 (Göppingen: Kümmerle, 1992); and Lorenz, Wolfram-Fortsetzung.
Michael Curschmann, “Das Abenteuer des Erzählens. Über den Erzähler in Wolframs ‘Parzival,’” Deutsche Vierteljahrschrft für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 45 (1971): 627–667. Kurt Nyholm, “Pragmatische Isotypien,” 136 dismisses the view that the J.T. was intended to be understood as the work of the historical Wolfram, and argues instead that the various riddles and games of disguise built into the narratorial situation in the J.T. would have been comprehensible to the original audience.
Werner Schröder, Wolfram-Nachfolge im “Jüngeren Titurel”: Devotion oder Arroganz, Frankfurter wissenschftliche Beiträge 150 (Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, 1982).
Georg Gottfried Gervinus, Geschichte der deutschen Dichtung, 5th edn., 5 vols. (Leipzig: W. Engelmann, 1871–1874), 2:161 compares the J.T. to a fruit that is not only tremendously difficult to peel, but also has a bitter taste.
Ulrich Wyss, “Den ‘Jüngeren Titurel’ lesen,” in Germanistik in Erlangen. Hundert Jahre nach der Gründung des Deutsche Seminars, ed. Dietmar Peschel, Erlanger Forschungen, Reihe A, Geisterwissenschaften 31 (Erlangen: Universitätsbund Erlangen-Nürnberg, 1983), p. 95 [pp. 95–113].
Guggenberger, Minnethematik; Lorenz, Wolfram-Fortsetzung; Volker Mertens, “Wolfram als Rolle und Vorstellung. Zur Poetologie der Authentizität im ‘Jüngeren Titurel,’” in Geltung der Literatur. Formen ihrer Authorisierung und Legitimierung im Mittelalter, ed. Beate Kellner and others, Philologische Studien und Quellen 190 (Berlin: Erich Schmidt, 2005), pp. 203–226.
The terms “intra-” and “extradiegetic,” referring respectively to that, which exists inside and outside a particular narrative world, form part of the narratological terminology developed by Gérard Genette, Narrative Discourse. Translation of “Discours du récit,” a portion of Figures III, trans. Jane E. Lewin (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1980). For a helpful summary and elucidation of Genette’s terminology, see also Ludger Lieb and Stephan Müller (eds.), Situationen des Erzählens. Aspekte narrativer Praxis im Mittelalter, Quellen und Forschungen 20 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), pp. 7–8, n23.
Adolf Muschg, Der Rote Ritter. Eine Geschichte von Parzivâl (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1993), p. 648. This imaginative modern novel retells Wolfram’s narrative with considerable elaborations.
J.T. 579,4: Alsus der gral was sagende allez mit der schrifte sunder stimme. [The Grail said everything in writing, without using a voice.] There is, however, a tradition of ascribing speech even to ordinary written documents. As well as the speaking book at the start of Wigalois (see n6 above), note also the speaking letter in Parzival 78,20: ein brief sagt im daz maere [a letter pronounces the news to him]. For the notion of a letter as a “sprechende Instanz” [speaking authority], see Horst Wenzel, “Boten und Briefe. Zum Verhältnis körperlicher und nicht-körperlicher Nachrichtenträger,” in Gespräche–Boten–Briefe. Körpergedächtnis und Schriftgedächtnis im Mittelalter, ed. Horst Wenzel, Philologische Studien und Quellen 143 (Berlin: Erich Schmidt, 1997), p. 97 [pp. 86–105]. For speaking texts more generally, see
Michael Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record. England 1066–1307, 2nd edn. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1993), pp. 253–256. Clanchy, Memory, p. 253 quotes John of Salisbury’s claim (Metalogicon I.13, ed. J.B. Hall and K.S.B. Keats-Rohan, Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis 98 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1991), p. 32) that Litterae … frequenter absentium dicta sine uoce loquuntur [Often letters of the alphabet articulate voicelessly the utterances of the absent.]
Flegetanis’ ability to read about the Grail in the stars (Parzival 454,21–23) constitutes one of many examples of the interpretability of the natural world in that work—an approach that Albrecht builds on in the J.T. For Wolfram’s presentation of the cosmos more generally, see Wilhelm Deinert, Ritter und Kosmos im Parzival. Eine Untersuchung der Sternkunde Wolframs von Eschenbach, Münchener Texte und Untersuchungen 2 (Munich: Beck, 1960).
For detailed discussion of the Grail temple, see Gundula Trendelenburg, Studien zum Gralraum im Jüngeren Titurel, Göppinger Arbeiten zur Germanistik 78 (Göppingen: Kümmerle, 1972);
Karen-Maria Petersen, “Zum Grundriß des Graltempels,” in Festschrift für Kurt Herbert Halbach zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Rose Beate Schäfer-Maulbetsch, Göppinger Arbeiten zur Germanistik 70 (Göppingen: Kümmerle, 1972), pp. 271–306; Zatloukal, Salvaterre, pp. 158–230; Finckh, Minor Mundus, pp. 344–366;
Richard Barber and Cyril Edwards, “The Grail Temple in Der Jüngere Titurel,” Arthurian Literature 20 (2003): 85–102; Britta Bussmann, “Mit tugent und kunst. Wiedererzählen, Weitererzählen und Beschreiben in Albrechts Jüngerem Titurel,” in Übertragungen. Formen und Konzepte von Reproduktion in Mittelalter und Früher Neuzeit, ed. Britta Bussmann and others, Trends in Medieval Philology 5 (Berlin and Ney York: de Gruyter, 2005), pp. 437–461.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, ed. Thomas Gilby, 61 vols. (London: Blackfriars, 1963–1980), 3a, 66.5.ad 3, 57:24.
Copyright information
© 2007 Annette Volfing
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Volfing, A. (2007). Introduction. In: Medieval Literacy and Textuality in Middle High German. Arthurian and Courtly Cultures. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230607224_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230607224_1
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-53177-6
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-60722-4
eBook Packages: Palgrave Literature & Performing Arts CollectionLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)