Kommentar zur 'Crône' Heinrichs von dem Türlin by Gudrun Felder

Abstract

MLR, I03.3, 2oo8 88i Erzdhlformen, ed. by Peter Ganz and Werner Schroder (Berlin: Schmidt, I972), pp. 49-62) observes thatGerman translators ofFrench texts idealize inaccord with the artespoeticae, he fails toaskwhy French adapters ofLatin sources do not do the same. This kind of objection can also be raised against the argument of thepresent book. If Veldeke, following the artes poeticae, could introduce no more than detailed changes tohis source, why was his French predecessor able tobring about so radical a revision ofhis sourcewith Lavinia? In slightlydifferent terms: if Veldeke idealized the charac terof Eneas inagreement with thepanegyric authority ofVirgil, why should thisnot also have toldwith thedifferentattitude of theFrench author? In one way or another, dependence on the artes poeticae, the core of thisbook, isonly part of the problem. In a brief concluding section the enquiry isextended toHartmann and Gottfried. For neither can theposition be established in so short a compass, but in any case this takesno account at all of Wolfram, the real counter-test for what isadvocated in these pages. Despite what we are given, especially inChapter I,much stillneeds tobe done before the argument of thisbook can be accepted. CAMBRIDGE D. H. GREEN Kommentar zur 'Crone'Heinrichs von dem Turlin. By GUDRUN FELDER. Berlin: de Gruyter. 2oo6. x+848 pp. ?I48. ISBN 978-3-II-OI8595-9. One of themore exotic outgrowths ofArthurian tradition inmedieval Germany was what was once termed the 'gigantic sponge' (Schwamm) ofDiu Crone (nowmore pro perly referred to asDie Krone). Although Die Krone is technically aGrail romance in the tradition of Wolfram von Eschenbach, itsnarrator has little interest in theGrail as amystical vessel or even symbol and essentially relates the story of a knight (Gawein) whose triumphs owe more to his own strength at arms than toGod's guiding hand. It isconsistent with thismore 'secular' ethos that,aftermanaging tobanish the curse on the old Grail king (altherre), Gawein does not establish a successor kingship of his own (as does Parzival in Wolfram's more famous romance) but simply returns to the court of King Arthur to reportwhat from the point of view of himself and his peers counts primarily as a famous victory for theRound Table. In that respect the work may be regarded as a 're-Arthurianization' of the Wolframian legacy back in the direction set byHartmann von Aue inhisArthurian romances, where a transcendent dimension is similarly lacking except in the purely formal sense represented also by the superficial references toChristian practices in theNibelungenlied. Gudrun Felder's exhaustive volume pursues a number of laudable aims. At the lin guistic level itgives readers intelligent conjectures concerning what she rightly terms thework's 'teilsverratselten und oft eigenwilligen Bilder und sprachliche Besonder heiten, die haufig genug zuVerstindnisproblemen fiihren' (pp. 1-2). It also provides accounts of previous scholarship and of what little can be conjectured about the author and patron of thisArthurian magnum opus of some 30,000 lines. With its list of personal names, voluminous bibliography, summaries, and very clear systems of cross-referencing, thevolume must count as an invaluable acquisition to the libraries of those few scholars who embark on a reading of this difficult text.At the level of interpretation, itprovides copious Referate on the views of various scholars on the work's numerous cruces. In this, it must be conceded, her task has been made con siderably easier by the number of articles and substantial monographs which have appeared on Die Krone in the last two decades. This inevitablymakes parts of the text read rather like a Forschungsbericht (albeit a very nuanced and properly critical one). There isno doubt that future scholars who muster the courage to read/decipher thismost rebarbative ofmedieval textswill be immensely helped by the prodigious 882 Reviews prolegomena performed by Felder in this scholarly labour which (itself sponge-like) has classified and cross-referenced both Realien and the (inevitably tenuous) inter pretations of various criticswith what appears to be well-nigh preternatural care. The only negative aspect for the present reviewer pertains not to any part of the substance of the book but to its self-limiting genre as a continuous commentary. I could have wished thatFelder had summoned up the temerity to smuggle in some sort...