Zusammenfassung
Trevrizents “Widerruf” im XVI. Buch von Wolframs Parzival wird wegen vieler Unstimmigkeiten häufig als spätere Interpolation des Dichters angesehen. Eine Unterscheidung zwischen Wolfram und Trevrizent als Erzähler und fiktiver Erzählerfigur läßt den Einsiedler mit seinem Widerruf als fehlbaren aber integralen Teil von Wolframs teleologisch angelegtem Roman verstehen.
Abstract
Trevrizent’s “retraction” in Book XVI of Wolfram’s Parzival is frequently considered a later authorial interpolation on account of its many inconsistencies. A differentiation between Wolfram and Trevrizent as narrator and fictional narrator-figure allows the hermit and his retraction to be viewed as a fallible but integral part of Wolfram’s teleologically oriented romance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Literatur
On viewing 786, 7 as a citation, see the commentaries of Ernst Martin, Wolframs von Eschenbach “Parzival” und “Titurel” Germanistische Handbibliothek, 9.2 (1903), p. 512, and Karl Bartsch/Marta Marti, Wolframs von Eschenbach “Parzival” und “Titurel,” Deutsche Klassiker des Mittelalters, 11 (1932), p. 160.
On the role and meaning of erstrîten, see Martin Jones, “Parzival’s Fighting and His Election to the Grail,” Wolfram-Studien, 3 (1975), 52–71, esp. 52–55 and 68–71. Jones emphasizes the difference between Parzival’s and Cundrie’s statements and that of Trevrizent, but does not discuss the “retraction.”
For differing recent discussions, see Bernd Schirok, “Trevrizent und Parzival: Beobachtungen zur Dialogführung und zur Frage der figurativen Komposition,” Amsterdamer Beiträge, 10 (1976), 43–71, and Petrus W. Tax, “Trevrizent: Die Verhüllungstechnik des Erzählers,” in Studien zur deutschen Literatur und Sprache des Mittelalters: Festschrift für Hugo Moser zum 65. Geburtstag (1974), pp. 119–34.
On the following see Bruno Nardi, Gli angeli che non fur ribelli né fur fideli a Dio (1959), rpt. in Dal “Convivio” alla “Commedia” (1960), pp. 331–50; and esp. John Freccero, “Dante and the Neutral Angels,” Romanic Review, 51 (1960), 3–14, and “Dante’s ‘per sé’ Angel: The Middle Ground in Nature and Grace,” Studi danteschi, 39 (1962), 5–38.
Cited from the Middle German version of ca. 1300, ed. Carl Schröder, Sanct Brendan: Ein lateinischer und drei deutsche Texte (1871), pp. 80f. Other versions are on pp. 119f. and 186. On the relationship of various texts in the legend, see Walter Haug, “Vom Imram zur Aventiure-Fahrt,” Wolfram-Studien, 1 (1970), 264–98.
Cf. Carl Lofmark, “Zur Interpretation der Kyotstellen im ‘Parzival,’” Wolfram-Studien, 4 (1977), 33–70.
An identification with Jeremiah is made by Martin, p. 520; Bartsch/Marti, p. 172; Wapnewski, p. 170; with Romans by Anton Sattler, Die religiösen Anschauungen Wolframs von Eschenbach (1895), p. 20; Weber, p. 78; Bodo Mergell, “Der Gral in Wolframs Parzival” Beitr. (Halle), 73 (1951), 70.
Cf. Arthur Groos, “Time Reference and the Liturgical Calendar in Wolfram von Eschenbach’s Parzival,” DVjs, 49 (1975), 43–65.
Augustine’s frequent use of O altitudo made this text a commonplace reference. See John M. Rist, “Augustine on Free Will and Predestination,” Journal of Theological Studies, 20 (1969), 420–47, rpt. in Augustine: A Collection of Critical Essays, ed. R.A. Markus (1972), pp. 218–252, esp. 240f.; Jaroslav Pelikan, The Growth of Medieval Theology 600–1300 (1978), p. 276.
See Wapnewski, p. 167 and Carl Wesle, “Zu Wolframs Parzival” Beitr., 72 (1950), 37.
See especially Walter Haug, “Die Symbolstruktur des höfischen Epos und ihre Auflösung bei Wolfram von Eschenbach,” DVjs, 45 (1971), 668–705.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Groos, A. Trevrizent’s “Retraction”: Interpolation or Narrative Strategy?. Dtsch Vierteljahrsschr Literaturwiss Geistesgesch 55, 44–63 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03376382
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03376382