One tenth of Tandareis: on characters and programmatic reduction of Arthurian literature
Abstract
23
Full text
One tenth of Tandareis: on characters and programmatic reduction of Arthurian literature Lena Zudrell– Universität Wien ABSTRACT Ein Zehntel Tandareis: Zu Figuren und programmatischer Kürzung in arthurischer Literatur Der Beitrag stellt die alttschechische Bearbeitung von Pleiers mittelhochdeutschem Artusroman Tandareis ins Zentrum. Dabei sticht der tschechische Tandariáš im Vergleich zum deutschen Text nicht zuletzt durch seine Kürze hervor. Auf ein Zehntel des ursprünglichen Umfangs reduziert, überspringt der Erzähler die meisten Kommentare und Reflexionen, um sich auf die Darstellung von höfischen (Liebes-)Szenen sowie eine deutlich einflussreichere und redegewandtere Frauenfigur zu konzentrieren. Zudem bildet der Tandariáš eine spezifische Form von Realismus ab und zeigt mit der Nivellierung sozialer Hierarchien narrative Strategien der Liberalisierung auf. In diesem Zusammenhang stehen etwa Verhandlungen zwischen höfischen und nicht -höfischen Figuren über ökonomische Vergütung. Der Beitrag stellt Fragen zum Einfluss dieser handlungsbasierten Beobachtungen auf die Ebene des discours und die Art und Weise des Erzählens. SCHLÜSSELWÖRTER Tandareis; Tandariáš; Liberalisierung; Erzählweise. ABSTRACT The article focuses on the Old Czech adaption of Pleier’sMiddle High German Arthurian romance Tandareis. The most outstanding feature of the Czech Tandariáš is its significant reduction in length. Cut down to atenth, the narrator skips over most of the comments and reflections in order to concentrate on courtly (love) scenes and aremarkably stronger, more powerful and talkative female character compared to the German source. In addition, the Czech text features aspecific form of realism and displays narrative strategies of liberalism. In this respect, Tandariáš moderately equals social hierarchies, when i.e. both courtly and uncourtly characters negotiate economic rewards. The article asks questions about the impact of such plot -related observations on the level of discourse as well as the way the story is told. KEY WORDS Tandareis; Tandariáš; liberalism; way of narration.
24 BRÜCKEN 27/2 INTRODUCTION After the heyday of Arthurian literature, 13th century poets as the Pleier composed ‘original’ Arthurian romances without French sources. Still, they were largely drawing on established characters, motifs and plot structures. Garel, Tandareis and Meleranz, which are attributed to the above -mentioned Austrian poet the Pleier, show well- -known narrative elements as well as narrative techniques. The success of these texts is inter alia mirrored in stunning reception histories. Pleier’sGarel, which is considered to be his first romance, is at least athoughtful reflection of Stricker’sDaniel and eliminates the often cunning qualities of its hero. In the South Tyrolian Runkelstein Castle, acycle of frescoes depicting scenes of Pleier’sGarel attracted the attention not only of literary scholars but also of art historians. Those frescoes date from the late 14th to the early 15th century. Arather exceptional testimony of reception can be related to Meleranz or precisely to the heroine’sbelt. An inscription engraved on abelt– abeautiful verse about love and desire– finds itself on acup that belonged to Austrian countess Margarete Maultasch of Tyrol. After afailed marriage with John Henry, Margrave of Moravia, Margarete married LouisV., Duke of Bavaria, in 1342 who gave her the engraved cup as abridal gift.1 Yet, Pleier’sTandareis probably shows the most astonishing form of reception. Roughly acentury after the assumed emergence of Pleier’stext the Tandareis was brought into Czech; Ulrich Bamborschke dates the Old Czech Tandariáš in the middle of the 14th century (Bamborschke 1984: 179).2 In the following, Iwill present acomparative analysis of the Middle High German Tandareis and the Old Czech Tandariáš, focusing mainly on characters and aprogrammatic reduction of length.3 Compared to the Middle High German Tandareis the most outstanding characteristic of the Czech Tandariáš is its drastic reduction in length. While Pleier’stext counts nearly 18000 lines, the anonymous adaption is reduced to atenth. Three manuscripts in Prague, Warsaw and Brno transmit the story of Tandariáš and his beloved Floribella, all three manuscripts date to the middle of the 15th century (Achnitz 2012: 299; Thomas 1998: 119). Scholars as Ulrich Bamborschke or Alfred Thomas relate the narrative tendencies of the Czech text to contemporary social and political changes happening in 14th century Bohemia. Written at the beginning of Charles’ reign Tandariáš dates into atime where the aftermath and consequences of Charles’ predecessor and father were still perceptible, but new impulses concerning everyday social life already detectible (Bamborschke 1984: 184). Acloser look at the reduction itself will be worthwhile before turning to possible cultural -historical dimensions of the adaption. Before that, the following summary of Pleier’sTandareis might be helpful. After an extensive prologue the Middle High German text tells the story of 12-year- -old Tandareis, who is sent to King Arthur’scourt. When young Indian princess Flordibel arrives at the Arthurian court, she asks Arthur to protect her reputation. 1 The cup is now owned by the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, Austria; URL: <https://www.khm. at/objektdb/detail/86251/> [16.01.2020]. 2 For recent research see Hon (2014), Hartung/Hon/Kragl/Timmermann (2016). 3 The following thoughts result from atalk given at the conference “Central European Arthurian Texts in aChanging World” from November 1st until November 2nd 2018 in Prague.
25LENA ZUDRELL In accordance with the well -established motif rash boon, the king promises to kill everybody, who comes (too) close to Flordibel. However, Tandareis and Flordibel fall in love and have to flee from the Arthurian court. Arthur and his men soon find and besiege the lovers but Tandareis is able to win every fight against Arthurian knights. When Gawein finally intercedes, some misunderstandings (as the fact that there has been no physical love between the young lovers) can be cleared up in atrial. Arthur decides that Tandareis is sent on adventures in order to vindicate himself while Flordibel has to stay with his wife Ginover. In the following episodes, the hero experiences anumber of partly related adventures. First, he fights against twelve robbers, gets severely injured and has to stay at amerchants house to recover. Then, he helps the son of an earl fighting against another 25 robbers, wins against four gigantic watchers, is therefore able to release hundreds of knights and ladies out of adungeon and finally becomes sovereign in Malmontan and Mermin. When the freed knights and ladies arrive at the Arthurian court, Arthur forgives Tandareis and sends amessenger to deliver the news. The messenger does not find Tandareis at Malmontan because he went off to other adventures. Hereafter, he protects aqueen against her opponent; he releases adamsel, prevents an attempted rape and gets captured in atower because of his last adventure. Since Arthur has set the sentence against Tandareis aside, the king decides to organize atournament hoping that Tandareis will participate. With some help of adamsel, Tandareis is actually able to join the tournament anonymously and in disguise. However, Flordibel recognizes her beloved and Arthur and Tandareis finally reconcile. In the end, every maiden Tandareis saved during his adventures is getting married with an honorable man whereas Tandareis chooses to marry Flordibel.4 Only aquick look at the Czech text reveals that the narrator skips longish parts of the hero’sadventures as well as most of the comments and reflections.5 What remains is avivid love story between two courtly protagonists and an astonishing concentration on plot rather than reflection. Research also shows that Tandariáš depicts adifferent composition of the main characters in comparison to its source (Brušák 1970: 47). Yet, the characters’ participation in the process of narrating and their involvement on the narrative level of discourse is still aquestion unasked. Therefore, Iintend to set afocus on acomparative analysis of the characters’ ability to define the narrative level of discourse. Content -related changes resulting of this generous reduction are both interesting and apparent, while changes or tendencies concerning the act of narrating probably are more subtle. Questions that arise are for instance: To what extent are the characters’ actions and speeches involved in structuring the narration? When and why do thematic shifts in the composition of characters affect the way the story is told and– as an outlook– can we trace down narrative elements that link the composition of characters to the shortening of the text? 4 Edition: Khull (1885). For amore detailed summary of Pleier’sTandareis, see Achnitz (2012: 293–295). 5 On the narrative reductions in more detail, see Bamborschke (1984: 180f.). Hon (2014: 29f.) describes the loss of the author’spresence in the text as aprocess of anonymization.
26 BRÜCKEN 27/2 To answer the questions Iwill take acloser look at the depiction of Floribella compared to her source Flordibel and related thereto narrative means of structuring the text at first. Second, Iwill outline anarrative tendency of economic liberalism that might be connected to extraliterary mechanisms as well as arealistic mode of narration. FLORIBELLA The young woman is introduced in line 25 of the Czech adaption (Edition: Bamborschke 1982). Anameless young protagonist announces her arrival as well as her beauty at the Arthurian court in four short lines (vv. 25–28) before the narrator praises Floribella’shorse. Nobody had ever seen amore beautiful woman, the narrator states, before he explains the background of her journey: she seeks aprotector because her parents died. What follows is one of the most popular Arthurian motifs: the rash boon, the king’sunconditional promise to fulfill whatever his guest is asking for. Almost every Arthurian text depicts this motif, some characters and/or narrators show openly critical reactions to the king’sbehavior, others affirm his generous promises. In Pleier’sTandareis, the knight Keie emphatically tries to warn Arthur of his own promises. This warning is embedded in atense and narratologically interesting scene where Keie says to Arthur that he should be careful because otherwise bad things would happen to him as they have happened before when amaiden brought amagic coat to the Arthurian court (Tandareis, vv. 367–377). Keie of course recounts the very well -known scene from Ulrich von Zatzikhoven’sLanzelet. Thus, the character not only acts critically towards his own king, he also proves that he is aware of asituation that had already happened in the Arthurian world. As aresult, the narrated worlds of at least Pleier’stext and Ulrich’sLanzelet merge into one big storyworld. The narrative potential of this motif is enormous, since Arthur’sguests usually request unrealizable demands and achain of action to establish the original condition of the Arthurian court is the effect of Arthur’sextremely generous, if not naïve promises. Aquite generic plot structure of the rash boon -motif would include the following narrative elements: aknight asks the king to fulfill his wish, the king agrees, the knight wishes for the queen, the king has to stick to his promise, the court tries to fight the queen back in order to establish the original condition.6 When the German text highlights the critical potential of the motif, the Czech adaption sets the focus on avery specific depiction of the main female character. The Czech Floribella as well as the German Flordibel obviously doesn’t ask for the queen but she asks Arthur to kill every man who forces her to be dishonorable. Tandariáš is chosen to be the princesses’ protector; he serves with great perfection until he cuts his own hand while preparing food. He is out of his senses because he fell in love with his protégée. Floribella realizes that her companion acts suspiciously and forces him to be honest. Both confess their love to each other and decide to flee from the Arthurian court. Regarding the Czech adaption, the narrator lays the foundation for acourtly female character that is able and allowed to speak up for herself, 6 For more information on Queen Ginover as well as the mentioned motif, see Schulz (2010), Webster (1973).
27LENA ZUDRELL which is– with respect to the German Tandareis– not amatter of course. Floribella is the leading force behind their escape; she organizes the following events, prepares Tandariáš for his fights against the Arthurian knights, and takes the future defeated knights in custody. The repeating structure in Floribella’sactions is striking and strange. 7 Not less than four days in arow Floribella equips Tandariáš for his upcoming fights and takes the defeated in custody afterwards (vv. 259–330). However, Floribella’sactions and speeches do have an effect not only on the story that is told but also on the way, this story is told. While Pleier’sTandareis tells us about the many adventures of young knight Tandareis that are aresult of his forbidden love to Flordibel and the characters motivation is to prove his unconditional faithfulness, the Czech adaption sets aslightly different focus. Here, the story about aloving couple is told and not the story of aloving knight and his object of desire. Floribella also acts as acounselor; arole, which is traditionally inherited by Arthurian knights, that are close to the king, such as Gawein. As Arthur is willing to bring the case of Tandariáš and Floribella to court, Tandariáš wishes to consult with Floribella before he even agrees to atrial. Floribella of course approves the idea of acourt decision and when Arthur files the suit, she speaks for both of them. Tandariáš on the other hand has no speech act at all; he remains silent from the point he consulted with Floribella and only speaks again when the sentence is passed and he is sent away from the court (vv. 351–442). In the German text, Gawein acts as amediator and conciliates between Tandareis and Arthur. Flordibel on the contrary doesn’t speak but chooses Gawein as her advocate (Tandareis, vv. 3582–35598). In comparison to Pleier’scharacter the Czech Floribella is depicted as astronger, more powerful, and talkative character. 8 The repeating structure is inherent, especially regarding Floribella’srelationship with Tandariáš. Floribella pleads for Tandariáš’ return several times in the course of events, while he is away on adventure and sends any defeated opponent to his beloved at the Arthurian court. In these scenes (e.g. vv. 620–624, 671–674, 695–697, 711–714, 801–804) the different roles and functions of the female character are prominently displayed. She acts as aloyal and faithful partner to Tandariáš, she raises her voice against the king in advising him to ask Tandariáš back and– regarding the narrative level of discourse– her speeches structure not only Tandariáš’ adventures but also the narration itself and highlight the episodic character. Following the observation that Floribella has more agency compared to Flordibel and the Czech character is more independent in her speeches and confident in her actions, the effect of this emancipation of the character is that both agency as well as integrity of other characters suffer.9 Tandariáš– as the court scene shows– seems to be apaler and more dependent character, which proves right regarding the following actions. Tandariáš acts when he is supposed to do so. He relies on atownsman who nurses him (vv. 483–525), he relies on god whom he makes responsible for upcoming fights and victories (vv. 526–530), and he relies on aprincess who’sbrother holds him captive (vv. 1248–1264). While Floribella takes actions and therefore functions as amotor for the narration, Tandariáš always seems to be one step behind. He stumbles 7 On repetition in Tandariáš see Matthias Meyer’spaper in this volume. 8 Thomas (1985: 102f.) also underlines the more active role of Floribella, the unchivalrous behaviour of Tandariáš as well as the narrative’semphasis on the lovers. 9 On acharacterization of Floribella, Tandariáš and Arthur also see Brušák (1970: 48f.).
28 BRÜCKEN 27/2 from one adventure to the other; episodes arise from each other without the character’s active participation. Arthur in turn is depicted as an angry king, relentless and furious, almost uncourtly. He reacts drastically on the lovers’ escape (vv. 225f.), he refuses Floribella’spleads many times (vv. 625ff., 675ff., 698, 715f.); rage and anger seem adequate to describe his character. After Tandariáš’ and Floribella’sescape from the court Kain, Gvan and Gavin send an urgent appeal for justice to the king but Arthur rejects their request (vv. 327–334). Gavin then gathers other noble men who insist on afair trial for the loving couple. The noblemen question Arthur’sintegrity and morality by reminding him that he had never ruled illegitimately before. Still raging Arthur finally gives his consent for afair trial (vv. 335–358). On the level of discourse, Arthur’sangry behavior emphasizes the love between Tandariáš and Floribella, his uncourtly manners contradict Floribella’scourtliness and diplomatic skills. When the composition of Floribella has an impact on other characters as shown above, this holds true vice versa. One characters’ actions and speeches do influence the recipients’ perception of other characters as well as their perception of the narration itself. ECONOMIC LIBERALISM Especially in comparison to Pleier’sTandareis the Czech adaption displays aspecific form of realism which Ipropose to summarize as anarrative display of economic liberalism. Iwill trace down some textual references to economic liberalism before opening the discussion to any possible relations to extra -literary mechanisms and socio -cultural tendencies. In verse 483–525 Tandariáš is wounded and alone in the woods after fighting against acouple of robbers. He comes to atown only to realize that the local people are not willing to help until he randomly meets atownsman. Tandariáš complains about his inability to find shelter on which the townsman responds with aquestion: ‘Would somebody perform agreat service who accommodates you in his house?’ (vv. 498f.) Subtle but still clearly the townsman asks for any future benefits for the helper. Tandariáš affirms the townsman’sassumption and promises reward as soon as he feels better. In the corresponding scene in Pleier’stext (Tandareis, vv. 4406–4890), the sign of realism refers to the very detailed description of the merchant’shouse and family. In the Czech adaption, the realistic mode of narration refers to the townsman’smotivation, which is aclear shift from describing aspecific setting to explaining aspecific behavior. The townsman is willing to help the helpless as long as he gets his rewards. The text portrays aform of systematic giving and taking, maybe an early form of trading in health care but definitely aform of economic exchange. As the already mentioned liberal aspect Iconsider the fact that the townsman is not interested in being merciful, he is not interested in helping for free, and most importantly he seems to not even be aware of the obvious social differences between him and the knight. The townsman is demanding compensation for his help in advance, otherwise he won’t help. However, it is not yet mentioned in detail what kind of compensation the townsman is asking for. Only at the end of the story King Arthur, who asks the townsman to choose atown or acastle and rule over his chosen area, actually rewards him with economic welfare (vv. 1795–1802). The merchant in Pleier’stext on the contrary is very conscious about the social hierarchy between the wounded Tandareis and himself. The knight’sappearance and clothing result in
29LENA ZUDRELL the merchant’scorrect assumption that Tandareis is of noble descent (Tandareis, vv. 4512–4523). When Tandareis acts gracious and promises God’sreward for saving him, the merchant and his wife decline any reward and are gracious themselves for having such aworthy noble man in their house (Tandareis, vv. 4632–4635). As in the Czech adaption, he calls for adoctor to cure Tandareis’ injuries but the German narrator additionally recounts that the merchant pays the doctor immediately (Tandareis, vv. 4559f.). Instead of economic exchange between the helper and the wounded knight (or his proxy, King Arthur), Pleier’stext displays the wealth of the merchant, who finds his personal reward in sacrificially helping awounded and helpless knight. Instead of negotiating social status, Pleier’stext also strongly confirms the social differences or hierarchies between knight and merchant, which seem to be independent from economic wealth. Long after Tandariáš’ departure from the Arthurian court, Arthur regrets his decision to send the young knight abroad but instead of amere personal desire, he also expects positive effects for his court through Tandariáš’ presence (vv. 1267f.). In order to get him back Arthur organizes atournament and promises agenerous reward for any information about Tandariáš. No matter what social standing, the king announces, anybody will receive aland and crown, who knows anything about Tandariáš (vv. 1655– 1664). Again, there is ahint of this superficial equality of all people, again there is the promise of economic wealth and there is the systematic giving -and -taking. Although the German text tells more or less the same events on story -level, it still highlights avery different motivation of its characters. Arthur wishes Tandareis to be back at his court because he is worried about the knight and his presence at the Arthurian court would be adelight instead of an honor, which actually is amuch more external and visible quality than delight or pleasure (Tandareis, vv. 11781ff.). Arthur also promises aduchy as areward for bringing Tandareis back but instead of emphasizing that anybody regardless the actual social standing will be rewarded generously the German text only lists noble characters in this scene. Adiscussion of social status wouldn’t be applicable due to the absence of any social heterogeneity of the characters. Arthur is talking to kings and noble knights in this scene instead of opening the tender to anybody (Tandareis, vv. 14494–14505). After the king proposed his offer in the Czech adaption the scene changes to an evil knight who supposedly killed Tandariáš earlier. When Tandariáš was defeated by the evil knight (vv. 1234–1242), he was held captive in atower, where his conqueror wanted him to starve to death (vv. 1243–1247). Rather than letting him die the evil knight’ssister has taken care of Tandariáš and saved him with the help of her uncle (vv. 1248–1264). When their uncle hears about Arthur’sreward for any information about Tandariáš he reproaches his nephew because he allegedly let him die and therefore missed achance to earn afortune (vv. 1666–1670). There is no corresponding scene in Pleier’sTandareis regarding the missed chance to be better off economically. In the German text, characters are portrayed less as underprivileged but more as aware of social hierarchies, whereas the Czech adaption offers its characters opportunities to economic wealth and therefore portrays amore heterogenic set of characters but still tries to level social hierarchies. Any comparative analysis of Tandareis and Tandariáš concerning socio -economic status of characters provides arather complex as well as ambivalent picture. Further questions could ask either about 14th century socio -economic conditions or the effect of this narrative
30 BRÜCKEN 27/2 tendency on the level of discourse. For comparison only, no equivalent mentality of economic profit can be found in the German source. Pleier’sTandareis, which is dated in the middle of the 13th century, does of course display aform of giving -and -taking but concentrates rather on inner qualities and virtues of the courtly society than on commodities or realms. However, as soon as these courtly values lose their impact in society the result is an empowerment of civil values and last but not least aslow replacement of the absolute feudal society with abourgeois society, which is amongst other indicators based on economics and trading. It probably isn’t save to say that the Czech text depicts this fundamental change in society in the 14th century but it emphasizes horizontal relations between equals (Thomas 2001: 121)– even if it is only on the surface. Featuring equal or superficially equal characters on story -level also shows an impact on the level of discourse, especially regarding the interaction between characters. Realistic modes of narration as well as narrative strategies of popularization10 are characteristic elements on the level of discourse of this 14th century adaption of an Arthurian romance. The abbreviation of the text paves the way for depicting the substantial aims of the narration: aheadstrong female character that primarily enables the typical structure of this text; araging king that lays the foundation for emphatically highlighting this woman’spowers; the processing of possible extra- -literary tendencies of achanging society into narrative strategies; and last but not least aconfident reduction of plotlines with the objective of telling astory of courtly love in amore and more civil society. REFERENCES Achnitz, Wolfgang (2012): Deutschsprachige Artusdichtung des Mittelalters. Eine Einführung. Berlin: de Gruyter. Bamborschke, Ulrich (1982): Der altčechische Tandariuš, nach den drei überlieferten Handschriften mit Einleitung und Wortregister. Berlin, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Bamborschke, Ulrich (1984): Zur alttschechischen Artus -Epik.– In: Schmidt, Wolf -Heinrich (ed.), Gattungsprobleme der älteren slavischen Literaturen. Berliner Fachtagung 1981 (= Veröffentlichungen der Abteilung für slavische Sprachen und Literaturen des Osteuropa -Instituts (= Slavisches Seminar) an der Freien Universität Berlin, 55). Berlin: Harrassowitz, 169–187. Brušák, Karel (1970): Some notes on Tandariáš aFloribella, aCzech 14th century chivalrous romance.– In: Auty, Robert/Lewitter, Lucian Ryszard/Vlasto, Alexis Peter (eds.), AGarland of essays to Professor Elizabeth Mary Hill. Cambridge: The Modern Humanities Research Association, 44–56. Hartung, Hendrikje/Hon, Jan K./Kragl, Florian/Timmermann, Ulf (eds.) (2016): Laurin (= Reflectiones 4). Stuttgart: S. Hirzel. Hon, Jan (2014): Late Medieval Czech Adaptions of German Verse Romances: Research Perspectives.– In: Slovo asmysl 22, 13–37 Khull, Ferdinand (1885): Der Pleier. Tandareis und Flordibel. Ein höfischer Roman von dem Pleiaere (Reprint der Originalausgabe von 1885). Graz: Styria. 10 Thomas (2001: 120f.) assumes that the intended audience consisted of the Czech speaking influential merchant class.
31LENA ZUDRELL Schulz, Armin (2010): Der Schoß der Königin. Metonymische Verhandlungen über Macht und Herrschaft im Artusroman.– In: Däumer, Matthias/Dietl, Cora/Wolfzettel, Friedrich (eds.), Artushof und Artusliteratur (= SIA 7). Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 119–135. Thomas, Alfred (1985): The treatment of the love scenes in the Old Czech romance Tandariáš aFloribella.– In: Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch 31, 99–104. Thomas, Alfred (1998): Anne’sBohemia. Czech Literature and Society, 1310–1420 (= Medieval Cultures, 13). Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press. Thomas, Alfred (2001): König Artus und seine Tafelrunde in der Kultur des mittelalterlichen Böhmen.– In: Fliegler, Dominique/Bok, Václav (eds.), Deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters in Böhmen und über Böhmen. Wien: Edition Praesens, 115–124. Webster, Kenneth G. T. (1973): Guinevere: astudy of her abductions. Repr. of the 1951 ed. Milton: Folcroft Library Editions.