MLR,96.3,200 I 869 DieLtebeskonzeption der mittelalterlichen Wrzstanromane. ZurErzahllogXk der Werke Berouls, Eilharts, Ehomas' undGotfieds. ByANNA KECK. (Beihefte zu Poetica, 22) Munchen:Fink. I998. 23gpp.DM68. Erzahlwelten inderErtstangeschichte imhohen Mittelalter. Untersuchungen zuden deutschsprachigen Ertstanfassungen desI2. und I3. Xahrhunderts. ByMONIKA SCHAUSTEN. (Forschungen zurGeschichte deralteren deutschen Literatur, 24)Munchen: Fink.I999. 325pp. DM 78. Thesetwo books ontheErzstan tradition havearisen from dissertations (atFreiburg andColognerespectively). ThatbyAnnaKeckis comparative inthelinguistic sense,taking bothFrench and German examples intoaccount, whilst thatby MonikaSchausten iscomparative inanother direction, looking atfour different German versionsfrom thetwelfth andthirteenth centuries. Thereisthus a large measure ofoverlap between them. Keckasks two questions: what isthe theme ofwhat sheterms the Tristan romance (inthesingular) andwhat isthenature ofwhat others havecalled'Tristanliebe'? Herconclusions areatvariance with traditional answers tothese questions: inplace ofanacknowledgement oftheabsolute claims oflove,sheseesherfour authors as expressing horror at thepowerofloveanditsenslaving, degrading effiects. She combines a diachronic approach (Beroul, Eilhart, andThomas areconsidered for the light they throw onGottfried) with a synchronic one(what narrative possibilities wereprovided by contemporary literature, aboveall theheroicepicand the Arthurian romance?). Inherintroduction Keckobjects toanymodernizing interpretation ofGottfried that seeshiminterms of'ambivalence' or'Zerrissenheit', andwishes toplacehim inhisowntime, rather thantoseehimas already 'modern'. Shestresses that, whereas intheArthurian romance thebestknight andthemost beautiful woman cometogether, in Eristan theopposite is thecase,sinceTristan and Isoldare (socially) nottheright onesforeachother. Moreover, Tristan's lovedoesnot advance hischivalry, since Tristan the hero isdivorced from Tristan the lover bythe potion (innoversion doeshefight a chivalric combat onbehalf ofIsold). Ageneral criticism ofthisIntroduction is thatin a bookdealing withfourauthors itis restricted to Gottfried alone.Moreover, itis tooreadytoleveloutdifferences, equating theconceptions ofloveheldbydifferent authors andaccepting without demur the view that the modern period begins inthe twelfth century (p.33),sothat bythis reckoning Gottfried could after allbeviewed as'modern'. Thechapter onBeroul opens well, bymeans ofa reference toTristran aspreux et cortois (p.46),with an argument against JeanFrappier's distinction between the 'version commune' and the'version courtoise', suggesting instead thatall the versions discussed here arecourtly. Thisisshown with regard tonarrative elements borrowed byBeroul from thechanson degeste andthe Arthurian romance, with stress onthecourt asa focus for different genres with which theTristan theme couldbe enriched. Doubtsarecalledfor, however, when memoire is associated simply with memory ofwhathasbeenheard(p.47),for memoriais alsoa function ofwritten transmission, orwhen terms likeozez orseignorsareseenaspointers tooralrecital. Norisithelpful when, although Beroul describes hishero aspreuxetcortois, heisalso saidtoattribute tohimqualities unbecoming theheroofa 'court romance' by Chretien (p.5X), for this implies that Beroul's work might notafter allbe a court romance. What issurely meant is'Arthurian romance'. The chapter on Eilhart (thebestinthebook)shows wellhowinhissourcereferences thenarrator wasclosely engaged with a knightly exploit ofTristrant, but wasnoticeably uncomfortable with himas a lover(p.79).Anadvantage ofthe Reviews 870 switch from a diachronic 'Stoffigeschichte' toa synchronic emphasis occurs with the demonstration of influence fromthe roman antique or heroicliterature an{l 'Spielmannsepen' (pp.85-86),butalsoextended to thecourt romance (p.92). Excellent examples ofclosereading aregiven for Eilhart's words onthe love-potion (p.94)andthelovers' first union (pp.99-I00). On theother hand, although Keck rightly questions a developmental pattern inliterary history, sheissubject tothis view herself infocusing the introduction onGottfried alone(p. I 2). Thediscussion ofThomas again opens with the question whether hiswork canbe regarded ascourtly (Frappier) orasradically asocial (Erich Kohler). Thischapter, too,hasgoodexamples ofclosereading (especially pp.I60-6I on thelinguistic ambiguity of1.2492). Concluding emphasis falls onthefact that for Thomas love wasnottobereconciled with anindividual's dignity, with hisraisun orcourtoisie, a fact that for him speaks against loverather than society. However, Keckisonmore uncertain ground whensuggesting (pp.I40-4I) thatThomasputshisversion forward ashistorical. Shebasesthis onhisreference toBreri, wholike Wacewasa historian oftherulers ofBritain andintowhosehistorical framework Thomas's characters areinserted. Thisplaces these characters ina historical context, without making theaction ofthestory historical. (Ina similar way, William ofMalmesbury couldaccept thehistoricity ofArthur, while dismissing thetales toldabouthimas mere fables.) Aswewere warned intheintroduction, thechapter onGottfried isopposed to thestandard view that hisversion issoexplosively unconventional that Ulrich von Turheim andHeinrich vonFreiberg hadtore-conventionalize andneutralize it. When Gottfried describes Thomas's raisun asriAte hemeans the credibility ofevents andmotivation (p. I84), butisready todeviate from this where necessary, not least inadvocating thecourtly, civilizing force oflove,as against thewarning tendency elsewhere intheWristan tradition. Inthis Gottfried discusses andclarifies thedoubts about the optimistic courtly conception oflovethat areinherent intheEristan story. Particularly in thethree longdigressions on loveGottfried stands apartfrom Thomas's admonitory pessimism andcloser toHartmann's optimistic view oflove, thereby seriously qualifying thenegative depiction ofthe enslaving consequences of...