NOTES Introduction 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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). 130 NOTES 4. In Middle High German Arthurian romances, an implicit sense of what is now called “genre” is created through narratorial discussion of the stock figure of Arthur: a narrator may speculate as to the expectations of the audience, or contrast his own approach to this figure with those found in other texts. Often the point of such comments is to suggest that Arthur is in fact less ideal than might be expected, and that other texts have been simplistic is failing to stress this. See Bernd Schirok, “Artûs der meienbære man–Zum Stellenwert der ‘Artuskritik’ im klassischen deutschen Artusroman,” in Gotes und der werlde hulde. Literatur in Mittelalter und Neuzeit. Festschrift für Heinz Rupp zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Rüdiger Schnell (Bern: Francke, 1989), pp. 58–81; Klaus Grubmüller, “Die Konzeption der Artusfigur bei Chrestien und in Ulrichs Lanzelet: Mißverständnis, Kritik oder Selbständigkeit? Ein Diskussionsbeitrag,” in Chrétien de Troyes and the German Middle Ages, ed. Martin H. Jones and Roy Wisbey, Arthurian Studies 26 (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1993), pp. 137–149. For Albrecht’s contribution to this critique, see chapter 1, section I and chapter 2, section II of this monograph. For Wolfram von Eschenbach’s polemical uses of intertextual- ity, see Christine Wand, Wolfram von Eschenbach und Hartmann von Aue: Literarische Reaktionen auf Hartmann im “Parzival,” 2nd edn. (Herne: Verlag für Wissenschaft und Kunst, 1992); and Ulrike Draesner, Wege durch erzählte Welten. Intertextuelle Verweise als Mittel der Bedeutungskonstitution in Wolframs “Parzival,” Mikrokosmos 36 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1993). For a useful overview of the concept of intertextuality more generally, see also Klaus Ridder, Mittelhochdeutsche Minne—und Aventiureromane: Fiktion, Geschichte und literarische Tradition im späthöfischen Roman: “Reinfried von Braunschweig,” “Wilhelm von Österreich,” “Friedrich von Schwaben,” Quellen und Forschungen 12 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998), pp. 37–47. 5. See Dennis Howard Green, Medieval Listening and Reading: The Primary Reception of German Literature 800–1300 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994). 6. Wirnt von Grafenberg, Wigalois 1, ed. Sabine Seelbach and Ulrich Seelbach based on the text by J.M.N. Kapteyn (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005). 7. Heinrich von Veldeke, Eneasroman: Mittelhochdeutsch—Neuhochdeutsch, Universal- Bibliothek 8303, ed. and trans. Dieter Kartschoke based on the text by Ludwig Ettmüller (Stuttgart: Reclam, 1989). Passages highlighting the literacy of the protago- nists include 1530–1534, 10624–10627, 10789–10808. Cf. Henning Wuth, “was, strâle und permint. Mediengeschichtliches zum Eneasroman Heinrichs von Veldeke,” in Gespräche—Boten—Briefe. Körpergedächtnis und Schriftgedächtnis im Mittelalter, ed. Horst Wenzel, Philologische Studien und Quellen 143 (Berlin: Erich Schmidt, 1997), pp. 63–76. 8. Wolfram von Eschenbach, Parzival 115.25–116.3, ed. Eberhard Nellmann, 2 vols., Bibliothek des Mittelalters 8.1–2 (Frankfurt am Main: Deutscher Klassiker Verlag, 1994). 9. Wolfram von Eschenbach, Willehalm 2,19–20, 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. 10. 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 NOTES 131 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). 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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