SOURCE: Classen, Albrecht. “The Role of Women in the Stricker's Courtly Romance Daniel von dem blühenden Tal.” In Women as Protagonists and Poets in the German Middle Ages: An Anthology of Feminist Approaches to Middle High German Literature, edited by Albrecht Classen, pp. 87-103. Göppingen, Germany: Kümmerle Verlag, 1991.

[In the following essay, Classen argues that Daniel of the Blossoming Valley contains several “modern” features when compared with other examples of medieval romance—particularly in its depiction of women—and marks a historical decline in male-dominated chivalric literature.]

It is not very long ago that most German literary texts from the middle of the 13th century onwards were either categorized as epigonal or as secondary in quality.¹ Once the classical period had come to an end, in which Hartmann von Aue, Gottfried von Straßburg and Wolfram von Eschenbach had flourished, a long period of mere imitations and repetitions seems to have followed. Only recently, however, literary scholars such as Walter Haug, Kurt Ruh, Wolfgang Harms and Christoph Cormeau have challenged this opinion and began to explore the vast field of late medieval Middle High German literature.² Under the guidance of Wolfgang Harms, for instance, scores of his students have worked at the University of Munich to investigate the avenues which opened in light of new theoretical discussions about that literature. Peter Strohschneider examined texts such as Hermann von Sachsenheim's Die Mörin, Ulrich Fuetrer's Persibein and Emperor Maximilian I's Teuerdank (1986),³ Otto Neudeck focused on the Reinfried von Braunschweig from ca. after 1292 (1989),⁴ Reinhard Hahn, an East German scholar, analyzed the literary court of Innsbruck in the later 15th century and the prose novel Pontus and Sidonia (A) (1990),⁵ and Albrecht Juergens researched the literary quality of Johann von Würzburg's Wilhelm von Österreich from 1314 (1990).⁶ In all cases the authors make a strong case for the novelty of the works under discussion and claim that epigonality in itself does not imply more than a value judgement. We are thus called upon to reconsider our literary canon and the criteria by which to evaluate heretofore neglected or ignored poems of the later Middle Ages.⁷

Certain elements can be determined which had a considerable influence on the writing of poetry after the classical period, if there was such a period at all and if it has not been the invention of positivistic thinkers such as Wilhelm Scheerer.⁸ Walter Haug, for instance, now suggests four aspects which influence our understanding of all medieval narratives and which will demonstrate the considerable difference between a text from the late 12th and early 13th century on the one hand, and a text from the later period on the other hand. According to Haug, the Arthurian protagonist in his classical appearance does not encounter or does not have to deal with one or any of the following problems and hindrances: 1. chance, 2. time, i.e. his human temporality, 3. his physical existence in the form of sickness, bodily anxiety, physical shortcomings etc., and 4. Innerlichkeit, i.e. memory, reflection, dreaming, emotions, fear etc.⁹

Here I want to examine the Stricker's romance Daniel von dem blühenden Tal from around 1220-1240 and investigate in how far those criteria may be applicable and to what extent women play a major role in this narrative.¹⁰ Helmut de Boor still characterized it as an Arthurian romance which was a failure from a literary point of view. The Daniel is, he claims, a “durchschnittlicher Nachfahr der Hartmannschen Kunstübung mit einem selbsterfundenen Helden und selbständig zusammengelesenen Aventiuren”.¹¹ Modern scholars such as Hedda Ragotzky, Ingeborg Henderson and Wolfgang Moelleken, to mention only a few, have, however, pointed towards new directions in interpretation, among which the concept of list is only one relevant aspect.¹² Under list we understand the protagonist's strategy to deal with complicated situations by means of ruses and rational approaches. Here I would like to contend that even list does not help the protagonist to solve all his problems, instead he has to rely on the support which he can get from women. Hence the particular structure of this romance needs to be investigated more closely before we can make a definite statement regarding its intent and ethical meaning.¹³

My thesis is that none of the criteria developed by Haug which define a traditional Arthurian romance have any function in the case of the Daniel and that thus the narrative belongs to the modern age in a subtle but definite sense. To be sure, Walter Haug intended to research the development from medieval to early modern in German literature, thus his interest was focused on the emergence of the post-classical Middle High German romance as well. In all likelihood, I suppose, he would concur with the view here expounded.

Various disturbing features structure the Daniel. The protagonist is not a member of the Round Table, but he arrives from outside and quickly assumes a central position within the Arthurian court. The battle with the traditional heroes such as Gawain, Iwein and Parzival prove Daniel's total superiority. As a next step in the development of the plot, the Arthurian world is challenged or rather threatened with total annihilation by King Matûr and his emmisary, the giant. Arthur understands that resistance would be futile, because the giant's armor is invulnerable, he does not even have one weak spot such as Siegfried in the Nibelungenlied or as Achilles in the Iliad.¹⁴ All of a sudden the glamorous court of King Arthur has fallen into a trap out of which there seems to be no exit. Only Gawain offers reasonable advice, since he suggests they go along with the giant and stab his eyes at a convenient occasion and thus blind him attempt to overcome him despite his magic armor. Yet, as we will learn later in the account of the battle between King Arthur's and King Matûr's troops, the blinded giant turns into a furious and extremely dangerous opponent who kills anybody whom he can grab with his fists. In fact, the poet describes the super-human strength of the giant in terms of killing chickens when he smites and smashes the knights with his sheer fists.¹⁵ Moreover, Arthur is not able to solicit all the help he needs to assemble a powerful army with which he hopes to defeat King Matûr. Some of his best knights are, quite ironically for an arthurian romance, just then out on adventures when they are needed most at home: “nâch âventiure geriten” (979) and thus unavailable for him. To sum up the initial round of events: nothing is at its traditional place anymore, and highly appreciated values have lost their relevance in a world determined by criteria different from those in place at the earlier time.¹⁶

At this point, when Arthur assembles his knights to answer the call by King Matûr, Daniel cannot resist the temptation which many Arthurian knights have traditionally experienced, that is, to leave the court alone and to try to defeat the giant's brother who is watching the pass to King Matûr's empire and thus to clear the way for his king. It is at this moment that the Arthurian romance loses its functionality and becomes an object of ridicule. Almost as a parody of Hartmann von Aue's Iwein, the Stricker outlines how Daniel lacks patience and goes out to battle all by himself. But in contrast to Iwein, Daniel's chances to win over the giant are slim and actually nil. There is no weapon with which he would be able to cut through the magic armor which protects the giant. The poet is very clear about the futility of Daniel's enterprise and has his protagonist reflect upon the dangers involved in a fight with the giant¹⁷:

wil in daz swert niht snîden,
sô muoz ich von im lîden
beidiu laster und den tôt:
mir waere guotes râtes nôt.

(1069-72)

Daniel becomes desperate, since he faces a hopeless fight in which any bearer of even the best knightly virtues would fail. Yet, at the same time he has gone so far as to expose himself to public ridicule and loss of his honor if he does not pursue his battle. Soon berserk rage overrides Daniel's thinking: “Dô vienc er eines lewen muot” (1075) and he is about to confront the monstrous creature, a guarantor of his own death, when a woman intervenes and warns him about the futility of his actions. But not only does she explain to him that he would meet his own death if he carried out his plan (1205ff.), moreover she offers him first an official excuse for diverting from his initial intentions or rather postponing them, and then even a magic weapon with which the giant can be overcome. This lady from the Mountain of Sorow (“Von dem Trüeben Berge”) facilitates Daniel to save himself and to uphold his reputation as a member of the Round Table, because instead of giving away his life for nothing and thus proving his complete foolishness, he is asked to defend the Lady. Out of obligation to the knightly code of honor Daniel agrees to fight against a dwarf Jûran who threatens the lady and also possesses the kind of sword with which the giant's armor can be cut:

Swen got des siges dâ gewert,
dem wirt ein sô getânez swert
dâmit er wol erslüege
dise risen ungefüege.

(1301-1304)¹⁸

Reminding Daniel of his proper role within society and luring him away from the giant, a relic of the heroic age and its representative literature (heroic poetry), the Lady outlines a possible avenue for him to avoid a situation in which no knight would be able to win and yet also an avenue towards ultimate victory over the giant. The strength of the female character does, of course, not lie in physical prowess, but rather, as the Stricker clearly demonstrates, in ruse, rationality, reflection and superior strategy. Whereas Enite in Hartmann von Aue's Erec had been instrumental in helping her husband in rather typical situations for a knight on his aventiure (robbers, jealous knights, a hostile count etc.), and whereas Lunete in Hartmann's Iwein had made it possible through her appeals to Iwein to rescue her from dying at the stake through a proxy fight against the trecherous seneschall, which all happened exclusively in the same world of chivalry,¹⁹ here in Daniel the lady possesses means to mediate between two different worlds, the world of an heroic age and the world of chivalry. The male protagonist would have failed, as we can deduce from the situation in the woods, unless the lady from the Mountain of Sorrow had shown him a way to win the crucial weapon. In fact, with this weapon Daniel will not only kill the guardian giant, but also his brother during the battle in the empire of King Matûr, and furthermore cut through the rocks with which the giant emmissary had blocked the way for any refugee out of Matûr's land, and thus Daniel determines the outcome of the global, world-historical battle between an archaic and a modern society. Yet, despite the impressive prowess and intrepidity which Daniel is going to display at any of the following events, we cannot help but smile at his almost ridiculous attitude modelled after traditional values. Although nobody might even be aware that Daniel has left the court he is terribly afraid of being mortified and shamed by society if he returns empty-handed or is found guilty of fear in face of the monstrous giant: “sô hât man mich für einen zagen” (1066).²⁰ Even Gawain had recommended avoiding a fight with the giant (825ff.), but nevertheless Daniel tried the impossible. Useless values are here made even laughable, but the lady who intervenes in the last minute to rescue Daniel from his suicidal intentions provides him with the appropriate means to reinstate those values, now, however, under different circumstances.

The next adventure illustrates the case quite clearly. Daniel is asked to “protect another lady, this time from a monster without a belly and which is able to kill people by looking at them (Medusa-motif!).²¹ In his fight with the dwarf he had employed a strategy which is rather untypical for a knight, that is he relied on the fact that he had longer legs than the dwarf and thus could beat him in the race for the dwarf's sword. In the second scene the list is more intricate, because the opponent possesses a tremendous weapon which is compared to that of the devil. Daniel cannot look into its eyes,²² and thus he resorts to a typical female “weapon”, the mirror which the ladies at court supply upon his request (1991): “hât ir deheinen spiegel dâ?”²³ Needless to point out that he is winning the fight with the monster, but he does not overcome it by means of a chivalric fight. Tristan in Gottfried von Straßburg's novel, for instance, had battled against Urgân with the help of his sword only and thus proven the superiority of his chivalric education (v. 15963ff.).²⁴ Daniel, on the other hand, encounters quite different enemies and can only defeat them with the help of magical weapons or tricks (list). A new type of hero emerges out of the Stricker's romance.

There are several aspects which point into the direction indicated by Haug. Daniel is hard pressed by time and experiences a conflict of interests, because he knows that if he does not kill the giant before Arthur will pass by on his way to King Matûr, there will be dire consequences for the Round Table. Yet he accepts the challenge, because there is no alternative. Iwein had experienced a similar situation regarding Lunete, but then his knightly virtues were practically not at stake, rather they were instrumental in finding a solution. Gawain in Wolfram von Eschenbach's Parzival also had obliged himself to help Obilôt, although he had to appear at another location. Yet, even there, the solution is near at hand since Gawain can be pretty sure of winning the joust and then face his real challenge. He does not experience an existential crisis! Daniel, however, has become subject to time and to chance, he is not free in his decisions in contrast to the heroes in the Arthurian romances of the “classical period” and needs the help of a third party. And finally, the protagonist is no longer invulnerable, rather we find him in a position totally dependent on magic weapons with which he can upset the superiority of the giant's armor or the magic wisdom and strength of the Old Man.²⁵ At the core of our considerations remain, however, women characters without whose help Daniel would not be able to achieve any of his diverse aims.²⁶

Let us consider another scene, the final one before Daniel establishes his own kingdom in Matûr's realm. Peace seems to be at hand, because all enemies are defeated. But the Old Man, the Father of the two giants, their creator, as he says, appears and kidnaps King Arthur and later smites Parzival when he tries to rescue his king. Magic and supernatural forces threaten not only the world of chivalry, but the world of human existence altogether.²⁷ Again Daniel finds a solution, which does not really enhance his position as Arthurian knight, but underlines his ability to think about a problem in a rational manner and then to resort to help which is available from women only. He returns to the Lady of the Green Valley because she possessses the adequate tools with which to defeat even the Old Man, master of many tricks and magical powers. At an earlier time, Daniel had been caught by her by dint of an invisible net. Helplessly he had been fettered and stunned by an object set up by a woman. Later she let him go because he promised to help her and her people against another devilish creature, this time, similar to the Dracula figure,²⁸ needy of human blood for healing its illness. Daniel had overcome the monster, but now he returns to the Lady pleading for her help. And indeed, with her invisible net the final battle is won against the Old Man, because he was neither aware of the existence of the net nor was he able to see it. The magician is caught in the net and surrenders first to Daniel's superiority on technical ground and then to his rational explanations why Matûr, his old master, had to die by the hands of Arthur.²⁹ The conflict ends in harmony, as most medieval romances are supposed to, but the circumstances establish a novel framework which separates clearly the Stricker from his literary forerunners.

The symbolism of the net is highly significant, because, like in the case of the mirror, and also comparable to the case of the sword, here indirectly a gift to a male lover from his lady, female objects and devices pave the way for the hero to achieve his goals. Obviously in accordance with their own time women are here not portrayed as superior to men in physical terms—see Brünhild in the Nibelungenlied—but act on a level exclusively preserved for them. In other words, the Stricker has recognized the transformation of the role of women which had taken place sometimes in the early Middle Ages and which had forced them out of the public sphere back into a world of “feminity.”³⁰

It seems that the Stricker plays on the motive of powerful women with knowledge about magic and sorcery. Similarly as in Gottfried's Tristan, the male protagonist both depends on their skills and experience, and is also in danger of losing his life from their hands.³¹ We remember Daniel's plight when he is caught in the net by the Lady from the Green Valley. She had set it up like a spider sets up its net, and she is about to take the helpless victim as a prey to the devil who needs human blood for his baths. For the first time in the tradition of Arthurian romances the protagonist is totally lost in such a situation and about to be sacrificed without being able to help himself. The only resemblance with another literary scene might rest in Iwein being trapped between gates and in danger of being killed for “murdering” King Ascalon. But there Iwein had been responsible for his own dilemma, for he had acted in an unchivalric manner when he stabbed his opponent in his back while he was fleeing from him. Also, he immediately found an ally, Lunete, who was willing to help him out in order to secure the political survival of the kingdom.³²

Two aspects emerge which reveal powerful forces at work on the level of a subtext in Daniel. First, the Lady of the Green Valley had caught many other male victims before Daniel entered the valley and stepped into the net: “des ist ez manges mannes rat” (4187). Again a magical instrument robs the knightly protagonist from his traditional strength. In fact, it is clear that all the women portrayed here can be aligned with the world of sorcery and magic.³³ Thus the Old Man, the inventor of the giants' armor, then the trecherous dwarf, and finally the devil who is in need of human blood are all closely related as a group with the women, who again mediate with the world of chivalry. But chivalry proves to be a failure in face of the outlandish forces until knighthood receives the women's support. Interestingly, Daniel can only win in the various situations if he parallels the monsters in their deceitful and ruseful strategies. No wonder then that he resorts to women at each juncture of the story in order to gain access himself to the archaic forces here at work.³⁴

And second, the chivalric virtues are reinstituted only because the lady of the Green Valley has been subjugated as well and with her, metaphorically speaking the mermaid from whom she or rather her father had received the net in the first place. The “female weapon,” however, proved to be of no help against the devil, who clearly had aimed at destroying all male competitors through taking their blood for his baths. It remains a mystery where the devil got his disease from, but it is a strange feature that only male blood seems to be able to cure him:

hie ligent tôt zewâre
alle die man in disem jâre
die in disem lande solden sîn,
die knehte und die knebelîn.
swaz hie knaben wirt geborn,
die hânt zehant den lîp verlorn.

(4359-4364)

The connotations point towards a sexually transmitted disease—not AIDS yet—but certainly a disease which makes him kill men only. On a mythical level the net represents matriarchy, but it can only provide victims for the new master over the society of the Green Valley.³⁵ The young princess needs as much help from Daniel as the Lady who was wooed by the dwarf and the one Lady attacked by the monster with no belly. The narrative reveals an interesting stratification of forces or world powers, because apart from the few vestiges of a mythical arena in which dwarfs, giants and monsters figure, and which are here represented through the sword and the net, no other indications are traceable which would point towards that other existence. The Old Man, the Riesenvater, however, functions only within the realm of King Matûr and later will withdraw into his nebulous mountain region inaccessible to any human being.

On the next level we find the women who have been invested with some tools from the mythical characters. But their strength has been fragmented, although it is not gone altogether. We never hear why the mermaid left the human world again; at least she left the net for use by the Lady of the Green Valley. The women in the Daniel do not control those evil or liminal forces nor do they know how to handle the weapons properly which they were given by the “monsters”.³⁶ Thus they need help, and help they find only among the knights, who represent the new society, the new world in which patriarchy reigns unquestionably. The cooperation between the women whom Daniel encounters and Daniel himself soon leads to the total destruction of all monsters and thus makes the mythical world disappear. We might call this process, borrowing the title from a conference in St. Louis at the Washington University held in 1988, “Entzauberung der Welt”. Rationality takes over and the male ruler assumes power both over Matûr's kingdom and also, indirectly, over those territories where women had played a major role before.³⁷ Interestingly the Lady of the Green Valley gives away the net to the Old Man as a gift and thus disinvests herself from a powerful tool with which she had been able to control her environment and particularly men at arms. Daniel had requested the Lady's support in order to overcome, with the help of the net, the last resistence of the Old Man, and afterwards there are no forces to be feared. Consequently the net loses its traditional function and passes on to the Old Man himself who disappears, along with the net, into his mountain kingdom.

I would like to argue that not only is matriarchy, here represented by the enigmatic mermaid, being dissolved and suppressed, but also, and much more so, the world of monsters, the archaic age. Joan Ferrante observes, as far as the role which women play in heroic poems of the Middle Ages is concerned, that “their most common tools are words and magic, both involving skill and cleverness, both employed to manipulate without the object's being aware of it.”³⁸ And the Stricker might have had in mind or at least referred to it unconsciously in his account of the merwîp:

der was aller ir lîp
als ein rôse getân.
mit der sach man rîten unde gân
ein vil wunderlîchez here.
si was küniginne in dem mere
über diu merwunder,

(4280-4285)

although his narrative leaves us in the dark about the mermaid's motives for visiting the Green Valley, except for mentioning her curiosity about the Lady's father, of whom she claims to have heard many marvellous stories (4290ff.). The knight was married, however, and after having seen all parts of his empire she simply returns to her own kingdom, leaving behind only the memory of a matriarchy under the sea and some gifts of magical power.

As an aside, similar observations can be made regarding the role of women in the 15th-century prose novel Melusine by Thüring von Ringoltingen (1456) where the disappearance of the powerful women is closely connected with and explained by her monstrous, snake-like appearance and family background which evidently distances her from the world of human (here even bourgeois) society. With her removal, once her husband has betrayed her true nature to his court, the poet can proceed with his account of human history and thus with the emergence of male power.³⁹

Daniel always strives for absolute triumph over the opposing forces, but several times he is about to fail miserably. We remember the scene when he first tries to attack the giant guardian without the magical sword. The net scene is another one. And a third time the ideal hero is being dismantled as a fearful human being when he is supposed to fight with the devil. In accordance with his chivalric upbringing and the knightly virtues acquired thereby he promises the Lady of the Green Valley to obey all her orders if she frees him from the net. But once he has seen the devil at work he succumbs and knows no other way out than to abandon himself as the next victim: “frouwe, ich wil gân, / mich mit den andern toeten lân” (4671f.). Only through expressing her willingness to die and to face the devil herself, the Lady is able to appeal to Daniel to revoke his decision and to accept the fight:

ir hât ein ritterlîchen lîp,
sô bin ich ein vil armez wîp
und hân alle die verlorn
.....warumbe woldet ir iuwern lîp geben?

(4679-4688)

She is in part to be credited with his successful battle, because her example instilled new strength in Daniel and reminded him of his obligations as a knight to fight for the defense of women. A similar operation seems to have been at work already in Wolfram's Parzival, as Helmut Brackert has observed:

nur durch die Aufhebung der väterlich-ritterlichen Kampf- und Kriegeswelt im Friedensreich der mütterlichen Gralswelt werden Voraussetzungen dafür gegeben sein, daß die für den Roman konstitutiven Leiderfahrungen der Frauen und deren Voraussetzung, die Erschlagung des Menschenbruders, aus der Welt geschaffen werden können.⁴⁰

The applicability of this hypothesis to the Stricker's Daniel von dem blühenden Tal becomes apparent in the case of the first lady who had appealed to his knightly virtues and thus had diverted him from his foolish plans to fight with the giant without having a tool to kill or even to cut him in the slightest way. The strategy with which Daniel wins over the devil is quite simple; almost as simple as in the case of the monster without a belly. Daniel plugs up his ears with wax and thus becomes invulnerable to the devil's magic words. He acts like all other victims among whom he hides. And at an appropriate moment he approaches the devil from behind and cuts his head off. The danger is over. We wonder where the problem had been! Why had no other man been able to carry out the same feat? Obviously only the close cooperation between the Lady of the Green Valley and Daniel had made it possible, and it is list at work, as Hedda Ragotzky has pointed out which allows the knight to win.⁴¹ Chivalry does not, in contrast to our expectations, play a major role anymore. When the men fight in battle, then it is not in a polite chivalric manner, but the brutish fight we know so well from the heroic epics, see e.g. the Stricker's Karl der Große. The consequences are clear for our interpretation of the Daniel. A male dominated world rises and sets aside all women who had, however, paved the way towards victory over the monsters.⁴² Although the narrative ends with a joyous tone and chivalric feasts, the actual structure of the new world has been established by a relatively unchivalric hero. Seven times Daniel is in danger of losing his life, and seven times women step in either to prevent him from committing terrible mistakes or to ask him for his help, but both aspects are strategically the same. To summarize these seven events: they are Daniel's planned battle against the giant, the battle against the dwarf, against the monster without a belly, against the devil, against the two giants (when Daniel actually fights against them and wins with the help of the magical sword) and against the Old Man. One of those battles, however, needs a little more attention here. When Daniel defeats the monster without a belly and has cut off its head, he is about to take this head as a weapon with which he could easily kill the giants. The thought alone contains a considerable temptation for him, but Daniel dismisses it and throws the head into a lake because he is afraid of being considered a devil himself if he utilizes the monster's eyes against his enemies. In this context the giving away of the net represents one more step in eliminating all monstrous forces, in sweeping the chivalric world from alien elements, so to speak. We do not know, however, what is going to happen with the sword, but it hides its true nature within the traditional shape of a sword and thus only enhances the heroes reputation. But we as the audience should keep in mind that Daniel is cheating in terms of the chivalric code of honor when he is using it. The proper thing for him to do would be to discard the dwarf's sword as well, but the narrative sweeps over those minute details and allows the protagonist to establish his rule without any interruptions from outlandish forces. Similarly, he never mentions the considerable help which he had received from the women and marries away the Lady from the Green Valley and thus gets rid of the constant reminder of his own failings as a knight. In many senses the Daniel is not a traditional romance. Both the emergence of rationality and the protagonist's frailty as a human being, and also the considerable role which women play indicate dramatic changes which transform this Arthurian romance into a forerunner of the modern novel. By “modern” I mean the development of “un-classical” features in comparison with works such as Gottfried's Tristan, Wolfram's Parizval or Hartmann's Iwein or Erec. The Stricker is still a representative of the Middle Ages, but his Daniel demonstrates to what extent novel features reflected changes of his time. We could also say that the role of women as displayed here rather reverberates traditional features which the poets of heroic poetry had stresses so much but which the “classical” poets concealed or even eliminated. But however we label the Daniel, it remains an exciting work of art and an important document illustrating how women fared in the Middle Ages and how they were perceived by their male contemporaries. Apparently they were reassigned their powerful roles as soon as the ideals of the male dominated chivalric culture were fading or lost their appeal. That is the case here, and not surprisingly women quickly reassert their claim to a position at least equal to that of men.⁴³

Notes

1. This is an expanded version of a paper presented at the 43rd Annual Kentucky Foreign Language Conference, April 26-28, 1990.

2. Walter Haug, “Paradigmatische Poesie. Der spätere deutsche Artusroman auf dem Weg zu einer 'nachklassischen Ästhetik,” here quoted from: W. H., Strukturen als Schlüssel zur Welt. Kleinere Schriften zur Erzählliteratur des Mittelalters (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1989): 651-671; Christoph Cormeau, ‘Wigalois’ und ‘Diu Crône’. Zwei Kapitel zur Gattungsgeschichte des nachklassischen Aventiureromans. MTU, 57 (Zürich-Munich: Artemis, 1977); Kurt Ruh, “Epische Literatur des deutschen Spätmittelalters,” Europäisches Spätmittelalter. Ed. Willi Erzgräber. Neues Handbuch der Literaturwissenschaft, 8 (Wiesbaden: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft Athenaion, 1978), 117-188; Wolfgang Harms, “‘Epigonisches’ im ‘Reinfried von Braunschweig’,” Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 94 (1965): 307-316.

3. Peter Strohschneider, Ritterromantische Versepik im ausgehenden Mittelalter. Studien zu einer funktionsgeschichtlichen Textinterpretation der “Mörin” Hermanns von Sachsenheim sowie zu Ulrich Fuetrers “Persibein” und Maximilians I. “Teuerdank”. Mikrokosmos, 14 (Frankfurt a. M.-Bern-New York: Lang, 1986).

4. Otto Neudeck, Continuum historiale. Zur Synthese von tradierter Geschichtsauffassung und Gegenwartserfahrung im ‘Reinfried von Braunschweig’. Mikrokosmos, 26 (Frankfurt a. M.-Bern-New York: Lang, 1989).

5. Reinhard Hahn, ‘Von frantzosischer zungen in teütsch’. Das literarische Leben am Innsbrucker Hof des späteren 15. Jahrhunderts und der Prosaroman ‘Pontus und Sidonia (A)’. Mikrokosmos, 27 (Frankfurt a. M.-Bern-New York: Lang, 1990).

6. Albrecht Juergens, Johanns von Würzburg ‘Historia Poetica’ von 1314 und Aufgabenstellung einer narrativen Fürstenlehre. Mikrokosmos, 21 (Frankfurt a.M.-Bern-New York: Lang, 1990).

7. Cf. Rüdiger Brandt, Konrad von Würzburg. Erträge der Forschung, 249 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1987), 195ff.; A. Juergens, 199ff.

8. Cf. Terry Eagleton, Einführung in die Literaturtheorie. Aus dem Englischen übertragen von E. Bettinger und E. Hentschel. Sammlung Metzler, 246 (Stuttgart: Metzler, 1988), 22f.; Klaus Weimar, Geschichte der deutschen Literaturwissenschaft bis zum Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts. (Munich: Fink, 1989), 472ff.

9. Walter Haug, “Wandlungen des Fiktionalitätsbewußtseins vom hohen zum späten Mittelalter,” James F. Poag/Thomas C. Fox, eds., Entzauberung der Welt. Deutsche Literatur 1200-1500. (Tübingen: Francke, 1989), 1-17, especially 6f.

10. Der Stricker, Daniel von dem Blühenden Tal. Ed. Michael Resler. ATB, 92 (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1983); all quotations will be taken from this edition, although it reveals considerable shortcomings, cf. Ingeborg Henderson, “Arthurian Iconography in 15th-Century German Manuscripts,” fortcoming in Von Otfried von Weißenburg bis zum 15. Jahrhundert. Ed. Albrecht Classen. GAG (nr. unknown yet) (Göppingen: Kümmerle, 1991).

11. Helmut de Boor, Die höfische Literatur. Vorbereitung, Blüte, Ausklang 1170-1250. Mit einem bibliographischen Anhang von D. Haacke. 7th ed. Geschichte der deutschen Literatur von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart, 2 (Munich: Beck, 1966), 194.

12. Hedda Ragotzky, “Das Handlungsmodell der list und die Thematisierung von guot. Zum Problem einer sozialgeschichtlich orientierten Interpretation von Strikkers ‘Daniel von dem blühenden Tal’ und dem ‘Pfaffen Amîs’,” Literatur—Publikum—historischer Kontext. Ed. Gert Kaiser (Bern-Frankfurt a. M.-Las Vegas: Lang, 1977), 183-203; Ingeborg Henderson, Strickers Daniel von dem Blühenden Tal. Werkstruktur und Interpretation. German Languagae and Literature Monographs, 1 (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, B.V., 1976); Wolfgang Moelleken and Ingeborg Henderson, “Die Bedeutung der liste im ‘Daniel’ des Strickers,” Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 4 (1973): 187-201.

13. Ingrid Hahn, “Das Ethos der kraft. Zur Bedeutung der Massenschlachten in Strickers Daniel von dem Blühenden Tal,” Deutsche Vierteljahresschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 59 (1982): 173-194, stresses that in Daniel rationality has substituted physical prowess. In many cases that is true, but often, as we shall see, Daniel fails miserably and does not demonstrate thos intellectual abilities as Hahn perceives it.

14. Peter Kern, “Rezeption und Genese des Artusroman. Überlegungen zu Strikkers ‘Daniel von dem blühenden Tal’,” Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 93 (1974) Sonderheft: 18-42.

15. For a survey of the scholarly discussion of realism in medieval literature cf. Johannes Singer, “nû swîc, lieber Hartmann: ob ich ez errâte?’ Beobachtungen zum fingierten Dialog und zum Gebrauch der Fiktion in Hartmanns ‘Erec’-Roman (7493-7766),” Dialog. Festschrift für Siegfried Grosse. Ed. Gert Rickheit and Sigurd Wichter (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1990), 59-74, here 70, fn.

16. Cf. my study on the related topic, “Transformation des arturischen Romans zum frühneuzeitlichen Unterhaltungs- und Belehrungswerk: Der Fall ‘Daniel von dem blühenden Tal’,” forthcoming in Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik.

17. To be sure, this has never happened to any of the previous arthurian knights in the classical Middle High German or French romances, perhaps with the exception of Lancelot.

18. Joachim Bumke, Höfische Kultur. Literatur und Gesellschaft im hohen Mittelalter. dtv 4442, vol. 2 (Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1986), 416ff.; cf. the recent anthology of relevant Middle High German texts Die Ritteridee in der deutschen Literatur des Mittelalters. Eine kommentierte Anthologie. Introduction and Edition by Jörg Arentzen and Uwe Ruberg (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1987). particularly 168ff.

19. Michael Resler, Erec by Hartmann von Aue. Transl., with an Introduction and Commentary by M. R. University of Pennsylvania Press Middle Ages Series (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1987), 33ff.

20. This is closely modelled after chivalric protagonists such as Iwein in the romance by Hartmann von Aue, because Iwein is also afraid of being publicly shamed by Keie in case he might return empty-handed after the battle with Ascalon.

21. Cf. Karin R. Gürttler, “Stricker, Der,” The Arthurian Encyclopedia. Ed. Norris J. Lacy et al. (New York-London: Garland, 1986), 531.

22. This again represents a form of literary parody because traditionally the eye contact with a beloved person was considered to be the first step for the lovers to communicate with each other. The parodied literature is the Minnesang, but we might, of course, also cite Dante's Vita nuova; for the role of eyes in love poetry cf. Katharina Wallmann, Minnebedingtes Schweigen in Minnesang, Lied und Minnerede des 12. bis 16. Jahrhunderts. Mikrokosmos, 13 (Frankfurt a. M.-Bern-New York: Lang, 1985), 183ff.

23. Cf. Tilde Sankovitch, “Lombarda's Reluctant Mirror: Speculum of Another Poet,” The Voice of Trobairitz. Perspectives on the Women Troubadours. Ed. by William D. Paden. University of Pennsylvania Press Middle Ages Series (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1989) 182-193; Danielle Régnier-Bohler, “Exploring Literature,” A History of Private Life. Georges Duby, Editor. II: Revelations of the Medieval World. Arthur Goldhammer, Translator (Cambridge, Mss.,-London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1988), 391-393.

24. Quoted from Gottfried von Strassburg, Tristan. Nach dem Text von Friedrich Ranke neu herausgegeben, ins Neuhochdeutsche übersetzt, mit einem Stellenkommentar und einem Nachwort von Rüdiger Krüger. UB 4471 (Stuttgart: Reclam, 1980); for the most recent interpretation of this scene cf. Hugo Bekker, Gottfried von Strassburg's Tristan: Journey through the Realm of Eros.Studies in German Literature, Linguistics, and Culture, 29 (Columbia, S.C.: Camden House, 1987), 231ff.

25. Haug, “Wandlung des Fiktionalitätsbewußtseins,” 8, stresses: “Wenn also die Sinnhaftigkeit des Kosmos nicht mehr fraglos akzeptiert wird, so führt dies nicht … zu einer allmählichen Fiktionalisierung der Literatur, sondern es kommt überraschend zu einem Entwurf, der mit extremem Nachdruck seine Fiktionalität zur Schau stellt.” For the role of magic in the Middle Ages cf. Gerhild Scholz Williams, “Magie entzaubert: Melusine, Paracelsus, Faustus,” Entzauberung der Welt. Deutsche Literatur 1200-1500. Ed. James F. Poag/Thomas C. Fox (Tübingen: Francke, 1989), 53-71, here 56ff.

26. Cf. my study “Royal Women in Middle High German Romances,” Proceedings of the Medieval and Renaissance Conference 1987, Villanova, Pennsylvania. Ed. Philipp Pulsiano (Villanova, PA.: Villanova University, 1989), 81-100.

27. Wolfgang Moelleken, “Die Bedeutung der Riesenvaterepisode in Strickers ‘Daniel von dem Blühenden Tal,” Spectrum Medii Aevi. Essays in Early German Literature in Honor of George Fenwick Jones. Ed. William C. McDonald. GAG 362 (Göppingen: Kümmerle, 1983), 347-359, especially 358f.; of little use is Helmut Brall's study “Stricker's ‘Daniel von dem Blühenden Tal.’ Zur politischen Funktion späthöfischer Artusepik im Territorialisierungsprozeß,” Euphorion 70 (1976): 222-257, especially 241f.

28. Dieter Harmening, Der Anfang von Dracula. Zur Geschichte von Geschichten. Quellen und Forschungen zur europäischen Ethnologie, 1 (Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 1983).

29. Moelleken, “Die Bedeutung der Riesenvaterepisode,” 354f., highlights the importance of the net which reduces the relevance of Daniel's list quite considerably. In fact, he perceives the Lady's superiority over Daniel: “Diese zwei Objekte (net and cream which allows people to see the net—AC) in der Hand einer Jungfrau … können gefährlicher sein als Daniels ‘liste’,” 354.

30. Cf. Edit Ennen, Frauen im Mittelalter. Third, revised ed. (Munich: Beck, 1987), 49ff. and 125ff.

31. Cf. A. Classen, “Matriarchy versus Patriarchy: The Role of Queen Isolde in Gottfried von Straßburg's Tristan,” Neophilologus 73 (1989), 1: 77-89.

32. Eva-Maria Carne, Die Frauengestalten bei Hartmann von Aue. Ihre Bedeutung im Aufbau und Gehalt der Epen (Marburg: Elwert, 1970); Volker Mertens, Laudine. Soziale Problematik im “Iwein” Hartmanns von Aue. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie, 3 (Berlin: Schmidt, 1978).

33. Cf. Cathy N. Davidson and E. M. Broner, eds., The Lost Tradition. Mothers and Daughters in Literature (New York: Ungar-Continuum, 1986); Peter Meister, The Healing Female in the German Courtly Romance. GAG 523 (Göppingen: Kümmerle, 1990); I do not, however, agree at all with Meister's Jungian approach to the study of courtly romances, see my review forthcoming in Mediaevistik, ed. Peter Dinzelbacher.

34. The same feature can be observed in the anonymous Kudrun; cf. Winder McConnell, The Epic of Kudrun. A Critical Commentary. GAG 463 (Göppingen: Kümmerle, 1988), 89ff.

35. Silke Schilling, “Relikte des Matriarchats? Zu einigen ‘märchenhaften’ Strukturen in Schillers “Turandot,” Der frauwen buoch. Versuche zu einer feministischen Mediävistik. Ed. Ingrid Bennewitz. GAG 517 (Göppingen: Kümmerle, 1989), 373-397, especially 381ff.

36. Edward R. Haymes and Stephanie Cain Van D'Elden, eds., The Dark Figure in Medieval German and Germanic Literature. GAG 448 (Göppingen: Kümmerle, 1986), see especially Haymes' valuable introduction.

37. Horst Wenzel, “Negation und Doppelung. Poetische Experimentalformen von Individualgeschichte im ‘Tristan’ Gottfrieds von Straßburg,” Wege in die Neuzeit. Ed. Thomas Cramer. Forschungen zur Geschichte der älteren deutschen Literatur, 8 (Munich: Fink, 1988), 228-251.

38. Joan Ferrante, “Public Postures and Private Maneuvers: Roles Medieval Women Play,” Women & Power in the Middle Ages. Ed. Mary Erler and Maryanne Kowaleski (Athens-London: The University of Georgia Press, 1988), 216.

39. Cf. Ulrike Junk, “‘So müssen Weiber sein.’ Zur Analyse eines Deutungsmusters von Weiblichkeit am Beispiel der ‘Melusine’ des Thüring von Ringoltingen,” Der frauwen buoch. Versuche zu einer feministischen Mediävistik. Hg. von Ingrid Bennewitz. GAG 517 (Göppingen: Kümmerle, 1989), 327-352; the primary and most recent secondary literature is listed there.

40. Helmut Brackert, “der lac an riterschefte tôt. Parzival und das Leid der Frauen,” Ist zwîvel herzen nâchgebûr. Günther Schweikle zum 60. Geburtstag. Ed. Rüdiger Krüger, Jürgen Kühnel, Joachim Kuolt. Helfant Studien, S 5 (Stuttgart: Helfant Edition, 1989), 143-163, here 158.

41. H. Ragotzky, “Das Handlungsmodell der list und die Thematisierung von guot.”

42. There are, however, a number of exceptions to the traditional model of passive women, cf. the Chansons de geste and related literary texts in German and French, see Eva Schäufele, Normabweichendes Rollenverhalten: Die kämpfende Frau in der deutschen Literatur des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts. GAG 272 (Göppingen: Kümmerle, 1979).

43. Cf. for instance Margarete Zimmermann's significant findings regarding the presentation of women in Boccaccio's Decamerone, “Boccaccios ‘Decameron’—ein frühes ‘Frauenbuch’?,” Der frauwen buoch. Versuche zu einer feministischen Mediävistik, 227-263; she stresses rightfully in her conclusion, 263: “es (Decamerone—AC) bedeutet den Bruch mit bestimmten Formen der mittelalterlichen Diffamierung des weiblichen Geschlechts … und steht am Beginn einer langen Reihe von literarischen Auseinandersetzungen um die ‘Frauenfrage’.”