Lanzelet/Vol. 1, Text Und ÜBersetzung. Vol. 2, Forschungsbericht Und Kommentar
2007; Scriptoriun Press; Volume: 17; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês
ISSN
1934-1539
Autores Tópico(s)Linguistics and language evolution
ResumoULRICH VON ZATZIKHOVEN, Lanzelet, FLORIAN KRAGL, ed. Vol. 1, Text und Ubersetzung. Vol. 2, Forschungsbericht und Kommentar. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2006. Pp. xv, 1389, and CD-ROM. ISBN: 978-3-11-018936-0; 3-1-018936-4. $402.30. Likely written about 1194 or soon thereafter, Ulrich's Lanzelet, the subject of this impressive and successful editorial project, belongs to the first generation of Middle High German Arthurian romance. The primary literary significance of the romance, however, lies less in its position in the German literary tradition than in its place in the larger European context of medieval Arthurian literature. Almost certainly based on a now lost Anglo-Norman romance that itself either predated or was roughly simultaneous with Chretien's Charrete, Ulrich's work preserves what is, with little question, some of the oldest Lancelot material. Importantly, much of that material, which will turn up again in the post-1200 Lancelot tradition-for instance, in the Old French Prose Lancelot and in Malory's Le Morte Darthur-is present in Lanzelet but not in the Charrete. At the center of what is the most comprehensive collection of materials on Lanzelet published to date is Florian Kragl's superbly edited text. For over a century, a new Lanzelet edition has been a chief desideratum of Germanistik scholars, who have sought a replacement for Karl August Hahn's 1845 edition. That earlier edition is marred by a critical apparatus both imprecise and incomplete, especially in its presentation of the variant transmissions among the Lanzelet manuscripts. Additionally, Hahn's attempt to recreate an archetypal text based on a melange of the two complete manuscripts, W and P, represents an editing practice long out of scholarly favor. Lastly, Hahn's edition could not take into account the two Lanzelet fragments B and GK that have surfaced since its publication. Kragl's newly edited text fully addresses the deficiencies of its predecessor. Following more current editing practices for medieval German texts, Kragl chooses a Leithandschrift to construct his main text. In contrast to Hahn, who gave preference to manuscript P, Kragl chooses W, which he correctly notes is older, more archaic in its language, and consistently more coherent in meaning than P. In accordance with prevailing trends for editing Middle High German works, Kragl inserts modern punctuation and uses standard normalization for spelling. In a departure from more traditional editing practices, however, he selectively presents in a second column, directly alongside his presentation of W, those passages from P and the four manuscript fragments that produce a significantly different reading than those based on W. By presenting these alternate passages, which he also fully edits, Kragl gives researchers a valuable window onto the different readings that the various manuscripts and manuscript fragments suggest, and especially onto the quite important and frequent divergences in meaning between the two complete manuscripts, P and W. …
Referência(s)