In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • Reden und Erzählen. Figurenrede in Wolframs Parzival und Titurel
  • Thomas Kerth
Reden und Erzählen. Figurenrede in Wolframs Parzival und Titurel. Von Martin Schuhmann. Heidelberg: Winter, 2008. 259 Seiten. €42,00.

In this published dissertation, Martin Schuhmann investigates the role of epic dialogue in the complex literary organization of Parzival and Titurel with the purpose of gaining a better understanding of Wolfram's narrative technique. Willehalm is, for the most part, excluded from his consideration. Schuhmann's purpose is broader than those of the relatively few previous critical studies on speech acts in Wolfram's romances, which rather examine specific themes conveyed in them or the formal aspects of their construction. He considers five relational aspects of epic speech: to the speaker; to the work; to development of themes; to the poetics of the text; and to the narration. This work is, however, not a systematic, comprehensive examination of dialogue in Wolfram, nor does it pretend to be; each section could conceivably be read independently [End Page 111] of the others. The author comes to no grand conclusions and views his work rather as a basis for further study of the topic (242). Along the way, however, he makes many interesting and insightful observations.

Of primary importance for his thinking is the recognition that the utterances of a literary character in both direct and indirect speech are themselves—contrary to what they seem—a fiction that functions on two levels: they are simultaneously directed at another character in the text and at the recipient of the text, embedded as they are in the larger communicational relationship that exists between author and reader. He bases his analysis of speech as a means of characterization of speakers on the repertoire of techniques suggested by Manfred Pfister for the drama, which has at is basis the distinction between how a speaker explicitly and intentionally represents himself and the implicit information he reveals through his use of language, although both Pfister and Schuhmann recognize that explicit information also includes implications that cannot be separated from it. Schuhmann also analyzes the implications themselves on two levels that are also not mutually exclusive: the speech act—that is, an action that manifests itself in the production of speech—and its form. He concludes that, with a few possible exceptions, formal elements like vocabulary, semantic fields, meter, rhyme, enjambement, and anacoluthon are not employed as a significant means of characterizing the speaker. Of particular interest in this context is his analysis of the use of first-person pronouns in the first direct speech in Parzival (6, 23ff.), Galoes's reaction to his courtiers' request that he grant Gahmuret a fief in Anschouwe. Schuhmann offers convincing evidence that Galoes's seeming nobility of character and generosity towards his brother are actually an assertion of dominance.

Schuhmann finds three phases in the characterization of Parzival: uncourtly speech before his encounter with Gurnemanz; uncertainty in courtly speech in books IV and V; and thereafter, courtly speech that is indistinguishable from that of other characters. He concludes that Parzival's early speeches are not necessarily uncourtly in their formal elements or lack of rhetorical sophistication, although they do reveal a certain lack of familiarity with the niceties of proper courtly discourse; they are, however, uncourtly in content, specifically the repeated references to his mother. In a comparison of the third-phase speeches of Parzival with those of Gawan, he suggests that while they are formally very similar, there are clear thematic differences. With regard to minne Gawan continually employs the rhetoric of âventiure, while Parzival emphasizes the concept of triuwe. In Parzival's monologues the basic concepts of knighthood are thematized, which is not true of Gawan's speeches. Gawan regards his êre as self-evident—of course, this is an aspect of Gawan's character that is not exclusive to Parzival—and he manifests a courtly tone even in response to aggressive behavior, while Parzival repeatedly exposes his insecurity with regard to his status. Gawan is communicative, while Parzival's silence is thematized not only in his failure to ask Anfortas the Grail question, but as he sits with Condwiramurs (Parzival, 188, 21), when he fails to...

pdf