Whilst accepting that in the Romances every last little bit and piece could
ahve been made up, mere thoughts issuing out of the writer's head, there
remains an alternate possibility. Indeed, unless there is proof (balance of
probabilities will do, but with the onus on those who make the postive
statement that it was all made up) that it was all made up, then we need to
consider that alternate.
That is that there are, within the tales, aspects of historical memory; and
where we agree there are anachronisms those anachronisms may be due to the
writer using terminolgy of his day to describe to his audience that which he
means, or taht which he has derived from his sources.
On that basis the story of Parzival's father going off to the Middle East
may be pure fancy; or a half remembered story of someone going off to serve
the Sassinid or Sasanian Empire under, say, Bahram V better known as
Bahram-e Gur (421-438), one of the most well-known Sassanid kings. He
symbolized a king in the height of a golden age, embodying royal prosperity
as after winning the crown and fighting foreign enemies kept himself amused
by hunting and court parties with his famous band of ladies and courtiers.
Myths relaying to him persisted even after the destruction of the Sassanid
empire by the Arabs (Wikipedia). [Sound familiar?] The Sassinid capital
was Ctesiphon, over twice the size of Rome at teh time, about 20 milies
south east of Baghdad, which replaced it after the fall of the Sassinid
Empire to the Islamic conquest of 637.
In 438 Bahram V's son Yazdegerd II (438-457) succeeded, and attacked the
Byzantines and then the Kidarites, and is said to be a just and moderate
ruler; but from about the 440s grew suspicious of Christians in his Army,
and expelled many of them, then persecuting them
So, if (and I repeat 'if') there is a half-remembered historical event of a
someone setting off on his travels to the Middle East, and serving under
Bahram-e Gur just outside Baghdad, before leaving in the 440s, eventually
coming home to father "Perceval", then Wolfram speaking some 750 years later
(on the basis of oral memories?) of the Baruch of Baghdad wasn't that far
out.
Still, he could just have made it all up, and the above be only
coincidental.
Kind regards
Malcolm Martin
London UK
Post by F***@aol.comHey. I've been re-reading Wolfram von Eschenbach's "Parzival," and at
one point he says that Parzival's father, Gahmuret, went to serve the
"Baruch of Baghdad," a position which most scholars identify as being
the Caliph.
While I'm aware the Wolfram was far from being the most detailed
scholar, the timeline on this is giving me quite a headache. Most
scholars identify the historical Arthur as having lived sometime in the
late fifth century/early sixth century. The first Muslim caliph,
however, Abu Bakr, did not rise to power until the middle of the
seventh century (632, to be precise).
How is it possible for Gahmuret to serve a Caliph of Baghdad, and for
his son many years *later* than that to serve Arthur? Is this just an
example of Wolfram's literary license?
More like an example of the Middle Ages not giving a flying flatulent fig
about anachronism. According to the Vulgate, after all, when Joseph of
Arimathea first arrived in Britain, he found it full of Saracens.
(Even Charles Williams retains Palomides-the-Moslem.)
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"