The following parallels will show that this Angevin element, though strongest in the first two books (those peculiar2 to Wolfram’s version), is to be clearly traced even in the presentment of what we know to be traditional features of the story.
The Origin of the House of Anjou Wolfram Angevin Tradition
In Book I. the origin of the Angevin family is traced to the marriage of Mazadan with the fairy Terre-de-la-schoie. The fairy origin of the race is referred to again in Books II. and VIII., the later allusion8 being in connection with Vergulacht, son of Gamuret’s sister, and cousin to hero. Ascribes their origin to the marriage of one of the early Counts with a lady of surpassing beauty, whose demon11 origin was discovered by her inability to remain in church during Mass. It was to the influence of this ancestress that the uncontrollable temper of the Angevin princes was ascribed. Richard Cur-de-lion is reported to have frequently said, ‘We came from the Devil, and we go back to the Devil.’ (In each instance it will be noted12 that the supernatural element is introduced by the wife.)
Gamuret Fulk V. OF Anjou
Younger son of the King of Anjou; brought up at the court of French queen; goes to the East where he marries a Moorish13 queen, and becomes king of an Eastern kingdom. Son of Fulk IV. (Rechin), and Bertalda de Montfort. His mother eloped with, and married, Philip, king of France. She remained on good terms with her former husband, and, Fulk, having already an heir by a previous wife, was allowed to bring up her son at her own court. The elder brother dying, Fulk became his father’s heir, and finally succeeded him. In 1129, after the marriage of his son, Geoffrey, with the Empress Maud, Fulk was invited by Baldwin, king of Jerusalem, to become his son-in-law and successor. Accordingly he resigned Anjou to Geoffrey, went to Jerusalem, where he married Melesinda, daughter and heiress to Baldwin, and, after the death of the latter, succeeded him as king, and reigned15 till his death in 1142. (Here again we note that, in each instance, the Eastern kingdom is won through the wife.)
Gamuret’s first recorded deed of valour is the conquest, in single combat, of Heuteger, the Scotchman, who appears every morning before the gates of Patelamunt, to challenge the besieged16 knights18. A similar incident is recorded of Geoffrey I. (Grisegonelle) who, during the siege of Paris by the Danes in 978, overthrew19 a gigantic Northman named Ethelwulf, who daily challenged the besieged in the manner recounted in the poem. Later historians cast doubts on the truth of this story, but it appears in all the old chronicles, and was undoubtedly20 firmly believed in by the writers of the twelfth century.
Herzeleide The Empress Maude
Widow, queen of two kingdoms, and marries Prince of Anjou. Widow, Empress, Lady of two Lands, England and Normandy, marries Count of Anjou.
Her son is subsequently deprived of these kingdoms by the action of one knight17, Book III. p. 73, two brothers, Ibid. p. 80. This loss of two kingdoms by the action of L?helein is insisted on throughout the poem, and the reader should note the manner in which L?helein, though only appearing in the Second Book, is constantly referred to; which seems to indicate that the writer attached a special importance to this character, cf. Book III. pp. 86 and 87; V. pp. 150, 154; VI. pp. 171, 188; VII. p. 196; IX. p. 272. (It may be noted that in no other version of the legend is a previous marriage of the hero’s mother recorded.) Her son is deprived of these two kingdoms by the action of two brothers Theobald and Stephen of Blois. Though Stephen was the principal aggressor, it must not be forgotten that Theobald, the elder brother, was invited by the Normans to become their Duke on the death of Henry I.; but on arriving in Normandy, and finding that Stephen had already seized the crown of England, Theobald resigned his claim to the Duchy and threw in his lot with that of Stephen. An English writer (such as Mapes) would probably have overlooked the part played by Theobald. An Angevin, knowing the Counts of Blois to be the hereditary foes21 of the House of Anjou, would hardly fail to record the fact that both brothers were concerned in the usurpation22 of the rights of Henry Fitz-Empress.
The Red Knight The Red Knight
The Red Knight as represented in the poem, mounted before the gates of Nantes, in red armour23, with red hair. This character is of course traditional, but the special presentment of it in the Parzival seems to be owing to Angevin influence. In 1048 William of Normandy, being at war with, Geoffrey II. of Anjou and besieging24 Domfront, sent him the following curious challenge: ‘If the Count of Anjou attempts to bring victuals25 into Domfront he will find me awaiting him without the gates armed and mounted, bearing a red shield, and having a pennon on my spear wherewith to wipe his face.’
Red hair was a distinguishing characteristic of the Angevin Counts. Fulk I. derived26 his name of Rufus from this peculiarity27, which was inherited by many of his descendants, among them Fulk V., his son Geoffrey Plantagenet, and his grandson Henry Fitz-Empress. The writer of the Parzival strongly insists on Ither’s red hair.
Nantes Nantes
Nantes, throughout the poem, is always treated as Arthur’s chief city. Karid?l is scarcely referred to, the Round Table is kept at Nantes, and in Book X. we are told that Arthur’s palace was there. This is not the case in other versions of the story. The possession of the city of Nantes was a constant source of quarrel between the Counts of Anjou and their neighbours of Brittany. Time after time the former claimed the over-lordship of Nantes, which stood just beyond their frontier, and more than once they succeeded in making themselves masters of the coveted28 territory. To represent Nantes as Arthur’s chief city, and Ither as claiming it, would be an alteration29 of the legend most natural in an Angevin writer.
Book IX. relates that Kiot sought for records of the Grail race in the chronicles of Britain, France, and Ireland, and found the history at last in the chronicle of Anjou. Britain, France, and Ireland were all brought into close connection under Henry Fitz-Empress, Count of Anjou, Duke of Normandy, and King of England, the husband of Eleanor of Provence and Aquitaine, who conquered Ireland in 1172.
The peculiar presentment of the Knights of the Grail as Templars (Templeisen), having their residence in a castle surrounded by a forest, recalls the fact that a close connection between the Order of Templars and the House of Anjou had existed for some time previous to the date of this poem, a tax for the benefit of the Order having been imposed on all his dominions30 by Fulk V. on his return from his first pilgrimage to Jerusalem in 1120. A community of Knights Templars was founded by Henry Fitz-Empress fifty years later at Vaubourg, in the forest of Roumare which became very famous. (The location of Monsalv?sch in the Pyrenees hardly seems to accord with the indications of the poem, which make it only thirty-six hours’ ride from Nantes.)
Finally, the name of the poet claimed by Wolfram as his authority, Kiot=Guiot=Guy, is distinctly Angevin, the hereditary Angevin princely names being Fulk, Geoffrey, and Guy.
Genealogical Table.
Kiot is brother to King Tampentaire, cf. Book IV. p. 107, therefore Siguné is cousin to Kondwiramur as well as to Parzival.
Appendix B
The Proper Names in ‘Parzival’
One of the marked peculiarities of Wolfram’s poem is the number of proper names with which it abounds31, there being scarcely a character, however insignificant32 the r?le assigned, that is left unnamed. In the other versions of the Perceval legend this is not the case, consequently there are a vast number of names occurring in the Parzival to which no parallel can be found elsewhere, and which are no unimportant factor in determining the problem of the source from which Wolfram drew his poem. It would be impossible in a short Appendix to discuss the question in all its bearings, but the following classification, based on Herr Bartsch’s article on Die Eigen-namen in Wolfram’s Parzival, will give some idea of the wide ground they cover:—
I. Names belonging to the original legend, and met with, with but little variation, in all versions. To this class belong the names of Pendragon, Arthur, Guinivere, Perceval, Gawain, Kay, Segramor; and the names of such places as Karid?l=Carduel=Carlisle, Cumberland, Waleis, Norgals, Dianasdron.
II. Names derived from a French version of the story, which may be divided into two classes:
(a) Names of which we find an equivalent in existing French sources, notably33 Chrêtien, whose poem offers so close a parallel to the Parzival; examples of this class are Gurnemanz=French, Gornemant; Peirap?r=Beau-repaire; Klamidé=Clamadex; Kingron=Aguigrenon; Trebuchet; Meljanz de Lys; Lippaut=Tiebaut; Gramoflanz=Guiromelans or Guiremelanz.
(b) Names formed by a misunderstanding of a French original: such are Soltane, from forest soutaine=solitary; Orilus de Lalande, from Li orgueillous de la lande; and similarly, Orgeluse of Logrois, from La orguelleuse de Logres; Gringuljet, the name of Gawain’s horse, from Li gringalet, which is explained as meaning cheval maigre et alerte. Ligweiz-prelljus, is Li guez perellous, the Ford35 Perilous36; and a notable instance of this class is the curious name Schionatulander, which is either ’Li joenet de la lande,’ ‘The youth of the meadow,’ or ’Li joenet à l’alant,’ ‘The youth with the dog,’ in allusion to the cause of the knight’s death. Whence Wolfram took this name is unknown.
III. Names borrowed or quoted from other romances of the time, of those to which Wolfram alludes37 most frequently we know the Erec and Iwein of Hartmann von Aue; Eilhart’s Tristan; Heinrich von Veldeck’s ?neid, Chrêtien de Troye’s Cligès, and Le Chevalier de la Charrette; and the Niebelungenlied and Dietrich Sage38. He also refers to other romances which have not come down to us, such are the allusions to adventures connected with Gawain in Book VI.; and to the death of Ilinot, son of King Arthur, of whom we know nothing. (The names derived from these romances are all noted, and their source given as they occur in the text.) Book I. contains some distinctly German names, such as Eisenhart, Hernant, and Herlindè, Friedebrand of Scotland and Heuteger, the source of these is doubtful, some occur in the Gudrun cycle, but it seems probable that in both instances they were derived from a common source, and, belonging as they do to a North Sea cycle, they may have reached the poem either through a French or a German medium.
IV. Names of places and people connected with Wolfram himself, such as Abenberg, Wildberg, Erfurt, the Count of Wertheim, Herman of Thuringia, etc. These were, of course, introduced by Wolfram, and could not have existed in his French source.
V. Classical and mythological39 names such as Antikonie=Antigone, Ekuba, Secundilla, Plato and the Sibyls, Pythagoras, etc., Jupiter, Juno, Venus, Amor, Cupid, Lucifer, Ashtaroth, and other of the fallen angels.
VI. Oriental names. In Book IV. we have the Arabic names of the seven planets, a curious coincidence, in view of the alleged40 Arabic source of the Grail-myth as given in Books VIII. and IX. Names of cities such as Alexandria, Bagdad, Askalon. This latter is of course equivalent to Escavalon in the French versions, and the real name is doubtless Avalon, but it is by no means improbable that the change was made not by a misunderstanding, but by one who knew the Eastern city, and it falls in with the various other indications of crusading influence to be traced throughout the poem. We may add to these the names of Oriental materials such as Pfellel and Sendal. But when all these have been classified, there still remains41 a vast number of names undoubtedly French in origin, yet which cannot be referred to any known source, and many of which bear distinct traces of Romance or Proven?al influence. Such names are Anfortas, French, enfertez=the sick man, with Prov. ending as; Trevrezent, Prov. Treu=peace, rezems=redeemed. Schoysiane, Prov. Jauziana, her husband is Kiot of Katelangen, Guiot=Guy of Catalonia. The son of Gurnemanz, Schenteflur, is Prov. gente-flors, fair flower. The name of Parzival’s wife, Kondwiramur, Bartsch derives42 from Coin de voire amour, Ideal of true love; an interpretation43 which admirably expresses the union between the two. Itonjè, Gawain’s sister, is the French Idonie, in Chrêtien she is Clarissant. The knight slain44 by L?helein at Brimbane is Libbèals of Prienlaskors, Libbèals being simply the old French Li-beals—le bel, and probably no more a proper name than Orilus, whilst his country seems derived from Prov. priendre las cortz, to seek the court. The long lists of conquered kings given in Book XV. contain many names of Greek or Latin origin, which have passed through a French source, and many others of distinctly Romance form. It is impossible to suppose that a German poet invented these names, and the only reasonable explanation seems to be that Wolfram drew largely, if not exclusively, from a French poem now lost, and that the language in which that poem was written partook strongly of a Proven?al character, the term Proven?al being applied45, as Bartsch points out, not only to Proven?al proper, but to the varying forms of the Langue-d’oc.
Excursus A
Wolfram’s Source
In examining into the source whence Wolfram derived this poem, it may be well to restate briefly46 the problem as indicated in the Preface. We may take it as an acknowledged fact, disputed by none, that for the bulk of his work, from the commencement of Books III. to XIII., and inclusive of part of the latter, Wolfram drew from a French source; he himself says that this source was the poem of ‘Kiot the Proven?al,’ and, while acquainted with the work of Chrêtien de Troyes, he distinctly avows47 his preference for Kiot over Chrêtien, saying that Chrêtien had told the story wrongly, for which Kiot might well be wrathful with him. From this we gather that, granting the existence of the two French versions, Kiot’s had preceded Chrêtien’s.
The difficulties in the way of accepting Wolfram’s own definite statement are twofold: first, that no trace of such a poem, or such a poet, exists (which in itself is not an insuperable difficulty); second, and more serious, that we do possess the poem of Chrêtien de Troyes, and that it presents such striking features of similarity to Wolfram’s version that it is clear that if one were not the source of the other, there is a common source at the root of both.
Now, of Chrêtien’s source he only tells us that Count Philip of Flanders gave him the book in which he found this story of Perceval and the Grail, but of the author of the book he says no word. Of Kiot’s source, Wolfram tells us that the story of the origin of the Grail was found in a MS. at Toledo, written in Arabic by a heathen astronomer48, Flegetanis; and it also appears, from a passage in Book VIII. p. 238, that the story of Parzival was contained in the same MS. That Kiot then sought through the chronicles of various countries for some confirmation49 of the tale, and finally found the record of the Grail kings in the chronicles of Anjou.
Of the sources thus variously given, the book possessed by Count Philip of Flanders, the Arabic MS. of Flegetanis, the Chronicles of Anjou, and Kiot’s poem founded upon these two last, the Chronicles of Anjou alone remain to us; do they throw any light on the question or not? It has long been asserted that they do not, and it is true that they contain no record of the Grail kings, nor, though King Arthur is mentioned, and treated as an historical personage, do we find any mention of Mazadan, Gamuret, Herzeleide, and Parzival under the same names; but it also seems equally clear that the writer of the Parzival knew the Chronicles of Anjou, and in the case of each of the characters mentioned above it is not difficult to trace a distinct correspondence between what is recorded in the Parzival and real personages and events of Angevin history. (A reference to Appendix A, vol. i., ‘on the Angevin allusions’ will show how close in some cases this parallel is.) Now we find that the greater number of these allusions are contained in the earlier part of the poem, Books I., II., and III., some of the most striking, e.g. the account of the origin of the Angevin House; the parallel between Gamuret and Fulk V.; and the introduction of Herzeleide, being in the two first books; i.e. that part of the poem peculiar to Wolfram’s version is also the part of the poem richest in indications of a knowledge of Angevin history.
The fact that Wolfram has an introduction, and a completion, to the Perceval legend which agree perfectly50 one with the other, and are not found elsewhere, naturally leads to the inference that he either had a source other than Chrêtien, or that he invented the books himself; which latter Simrock claims to have been the case. In a case of this kind, where there is an utter lack of external testimony51 to help us, we can only judge from the internal evidence of the work itself, and here we are met at the outset by the startling phenomenon of a poem, ascribed to the invention of a German poet, abounding52 in allusions to a contemporary French line of princes, and evidently designed for the glorification53 of that house. It is perfectly true that the princely family in question had risen to a point of greatness that resulted in their dominating for some years European politics, but, in the absence of any testimony connecting Wolfram with the House of Anjou, we are at least entitled to ask how he possibly came to give such a colour to his poem. It is impossible to avoid being perplexed54 by such questions as these; how did Wolfram come to be so familiar with the early history of the Angevin counts? If he wished to glorify55 any reigning56 prince why did he not choose a German, say Hermann of Thuringia, rather than lead to the suspicion that he wished to compliment a house represented at the time he wrote by its very worst and weakest descendant, John of Anjou and England? Why did he lay the adventures of his hero’s father in the East, and bring into the story the curious and enigmatic personality of Feirefis, and, having invented him, give him a name of undoubted French origin? And even if we pass over the difficulties of the first two books we are met by other questions just as puzzling, e.g. why did Wolfram, who had so high an idea of fidelity57 to his source, and who blamed so strongly the leading poet of his day for the fault of departing from his supposed model, represent the Grail and the dwellers58 in Its castle in the light in which he did? There is no parallel to his Grail-stone or the ‘Templeisen’ throughout the whole Grail literature, and we cannot escape from the alternative of admitting that if Wolfram did not invent all this he found it in a source unknown to us.
The problem of the Grail has been attempted to be solved by the hypothesis of a misunderstanding of Chrêtien de Troyes, this solution is of course possible, but it must be admitted that it has the appearance rather of an ingenious evasion59 than an explanation of a difficulty, and it holds good for nothing beyond the bare presentment of the Grail as a stone. The Angevin problem, on the other hand, has so far never been solved at all, and only its removal hinted at by the suggestion that Walter Mapes was the author of Wolfram’s source, which of course admits that Wolfram had a source other than Chrêtien, and therefore by implication throws doubt on the above suggested explanation of the Grail which is based on the supposition that Chrêtien, and Chrêtien alone, was the source of Wolfram’s information. In fact, so long as we refuse to admit the truth of Wolfram’s own explicit60 statements, so long shall we find the interpretation of the Parzival beset61 with innumerable difficulties, the attempted explanation of one part of the problem only rendering62 the remaining portion more obscure; but if we will accept it as possible that Wolfram gave a correct account of the source of his poem, and, divesting63 our minds of all preconceived ideas in favour of this or that theory, carefully examine the indications afforded by the poem itself, we may find that there is a solution which will meet, more or less fully64, all the difficulties which beset the question. Now, as remarked above, when Wolfram wrote his poem the power of the Angevin House was beginning to decline, the date assigned to the Parzival, with which date all the internal evidences agree, is within the first fifteen years of the thirteenth century, a period exactly corresponding to the reign10 of John, and it may be the first two or three years of that of his successor Henry III., and it was during the fatuous65 misgovernment of these princes that the edifice66 so carefully built up by the early Angevin counts fell to pieces. Works in glorification of any special house or kingdom are not, as a rule, written during that house or kingdom’s period of decadence67, rather during its time of growth and aggrandisement, and we find as a fact that the events which led to the accession of an Angevin count to the throne of England ‘stirred up, during the early years of Henry Fitz-Empress’ reign, a spirit of patriotic68 loyalty69 which led more than one of his subjects to collect the floating popular traditions of his race, and weave them into a narrative70 which passed for a history of the Angevin counts.’ (Cf. England under the Angevin Kings, vol. ii. p. 195.) It is therefore to this period rather than to a later date, i.e. to Wolfram’s source rather than to Wolfram himself, that historical testimony would bid us assign the Angevin allusions. History also forbids us to assume that Chrêtien could have been the source of Wolfram’s information; Chrêtien was of Troyes, in Champagne71, therefore an adherent72 of the House of Blois who were hereditary foes of the Angevin counts, and not without reason, as the latter were most undesirable73 neighbours, and never lost a chance of increasing their dominions at the expense of their fellow-princes. At one time or another, either by marriage or by conquest, they annexed74 all the surrounding estates (though they grasped considerably75 more than they could permanently76 hold), and after the marriage of Henry Fitz-Empress with Eleanor of Aquitaine, the heiress of Poitou and Guyenne, and of his son Geoffrey with Constance of Brittany, the whole of the coast-line of France belonged to the Angevin possessions. It was not surprising that princes of such an acquisitive nature should have many enemies, and when Henry’s sons rebelled against him they were not without friends to back them up, among them, apparently77, was the very Count Philip of Flanders from whom Chrêtien received the book from whence he drew his poem. If then Wolfram in his first two books was following a French poet, that poet was not Chrêtien.
But if the Angevin counts had many foes they had also many adherents78, not only in Europe but in the East, their connection with which dated back to the reign of Fulk Nerra, or Fulk the Palmer. It was not to a member of an unknown house that Baldwin, king of Jerusalem, in 1129 sent an invitation to become his son-in-law and successor; nor did Fulk, when he left Anjou for Jerusalem, go alone—we are expressly told that he took a large army with him. Fulk himself died in 1142, but he left sons who succeeded him, so that the Angevin rule in the East did not end with his death.
Is it then impossible, or even improbable, that this ‘Kiot the Proven?al’ of whom Wolfram speaks was an adherent of the House of Anjou, who had followed their fortunes in the East, and who, coming under the spell of the Grail myth in its connection with the Perceval legend, remodelled79 the story, probably then still in a rough and transitional form, in accordance with his own personal experiences and prepossessions? Do not all the indications afforded by the poem favour this theory? Such a man would have been thoroughly80 familiar with the legends that had gathered round the early Angevin princes, as well as with the historical facts connected with their successors; he would have come into contact with the Order of the Knights Templars in a land where they were in deed, and not merely in name, guardians81 of the Faith; he would be familiar with many a legend of precious stones, the favourite talisman82 of the East, and would know the special virtue83 ascribed to each; above all, he would have seen before him in a concrete form the contest between faith and unbelief, darkness and light, Christianity and Heathendom, a black race and a white, which forms at least one of the leading ideas in the interpretation of the poem.
In fact, if we will allow the existence of such a writer as a travelled Angevin might well have been, we shall find all the principal problems of the Parzival admit of a rational explanation. Even the central puzzle, Wolfram’s representation of the Grail, is explicable on such an hypothesis. We know how very vague Chrêtien’s account of the Grail is; how much in the dark he leaves us as to Its outward form, Its influence, and Its origin. A writer before Chrêtien is scarcely likely to have been more explicit; what more likely than that a man long resident in the East, and familiar, as has been said above, with Eastern jewel talismans85 and the legends connected with them, when confronted with this mysterious Grail, of which no definite account was given, yet which apparently exercised a magical life-sustaining influence, should have jumped to the conclusion of Its, at least partial, identity with the precious stones of the power of which he had heard so much?
And in connection with this it is worthy86 of note that Wolfram represents the Grail as lying on a green Achmardi; in other versions of the Grail romances it is red, or white, samite that we find mentioned as veiling the relic87. Throughout the poem we find green constantly mentioned, e.g. Gamuret’s equipment, the robes of the Grail maidens88 and of Gramoflanz, the cross over Gamuret’s grave, Trevrezent’s shrine89 or reliquary; all these allusions seem to point to the writer’s familiarity with green as a royal and sacred colour, a knowledge which could only have been gained in the East. Nor, as mentioned in note to Book IX., is the description of the Grail the only instance of a mystical influence being attributed to a precious stone, but throughout the whole poem the constant mention of gems90, and, in special instances, of the virtue they possess, is one of the marked peculiarities of the poem, and one of the features which differentiate91 it from Chrêtien’s version.
That Wolfram had a model for these earlier books, and one that he was following closely, appears from the description he gives in two places of Kailet’s armour; in Book I. we find ’do rekande ich abr wol dinen str?s, ame schilde ein sarapandra test,’ and in Book II. ’stit d?n str?s noch sunder34 nest? Du solt din14 sarapandra test gein sinem halben gr?fen92 tragen,’ where in both instances it is distinctly implied that Kailet had two badges, an ostrich93 on his helmet and a snake’s head on his shield, which is, to say the least, extremely unlikely. What seems to be really meant is that Kailet carried the figure of the entire bird on his helmet, and a representation of its head on his shield; the likeness94 in the shape of the latter to a snake’s head has often been commented upon, and the ostrich, from its curious head and neck, has been known as ‘the serpent bird.’ It seems clear that here at least Wolfram was following another description, and one which he did not altogether understand.
As to the conclusion to be drawn95 from the proper names which occur in such profusion96 throughout the poem, this question has been so fully treated by Bartsch (cf. vol. i. Appendix B) that it would be superfluous97 to discuss it here; and the correspondence between the Titurel poems and the Parzival, which argues a common source for both, has also been adequately discussed, but the addition of the arguments to be derived from the correspondence existing between Wolfram’s Angevin allusions and the facts of Angevin history, seems to put it beyond doubt that there is a strong body of evidence in support of Wolfram’s own statement that he had a French source other than Chrêtien de Troyes; and, if we admit that he spoke98 the truth so far, it seems only logical to believe that he was also speaking the truth when he gave the name of the author of his source as ’Kiot the Proven?al.’
Excursus B
Relation of Wolfram to ChrêTien
In explanation of the striking agreement which exists between the Parzival of Wolfram von Eschenbach and that part of Li Conte del Graal which we owe to Chrêtien de Troyes, three solutions may be suggested: (a) That Chrêtien was the source of Wolfram; (b) That Chrêtien and Wolfram both drew from a common source, that source, if Wolfram is to be believed, being Kiot; (c) That Chrêtien, who wrote before Wolfram, drew from a source anterior99 to Wolfram, which source was also used by Kiot.
For reasons already stated we may dismiss (a) without further argument, and accept Wolfram’s statement as to the existence of a French poem other than Chrêtien’s; but the question as to the relationship existing between these two poems, whether the one was directly the source of the other (as Wolfram seems to have supposed), or whether both represent a common source, requires to be carefully examined.
The principal difference between the Parzival and the Conte del Graal is in the Introduction, which is missing entirely100 in Chrêtien, whose account of Perceval’s father and of his death is at variance101 with all the other versions, and has been supplemented by a later Introduction, more in harmony with what seems to have been accepted as the original form of the story, i.e. with the fact of the death of the hero’s father before his birth, and the flight of the widowed mother into the woods. Now, it is of course quite possible, it is even highly probable, that Chrêtien, had he known a version of the story such as Wolfram gives, would have rejected it on account of its connection with the House of Anjou, but we cannot base any argument on the absence of this introduction, since Chrêtien left his poem unfinished at a point before the close connection between the first two books and the ending of the story becomes apparent in Wolfram. Had Chrêtien lived to complete his work we should have then been in a better position to judge whether he knew Kiot’s poem and deliberately102 set it on one side, or whether he was following another version.
Closely as the two poems agree, it is noticeable that, in more than one instance, Chrêtien’s version of an incident is more in harmony with the story as told in other members of the Grail cycle than is Wolfram’s; e.g. Parzival’s visit to the court of King Arthur, and Gawain’s adventure in the Chateau103 Merveil, both of which have been fully treated in the Notes. It is curious also that in the three versions of the story most closely agreeing, the Conte del Graal, Parzival, and Peredur, we find the bleeding lance and the sword in each, while for the ‘Grail’ talisman we have variously, an enigmatic object of gold set with precious stones, a stone, and a bleeding head on a dish; this variation seems to point to the conclusion that the lance and sword, and not the ‘Grail,’ were the original features of the story; and accordingly we find in Chrêtien that it is the lance, and not the Grail, which Gawain goes to seek; and the lance is also treated at greater length than is the Grail.
If Wolfram and Chrêtien were drawing from the same source it seems strange that it is in the work of that one of the two who avowedly104 places a high value on adherence106 to the traditional form of the story that we miss just these archaic107 features.
Again, Wolfram and Chrêtien differ very decidedly in their presentment of the Grail knights and their organisation108; if so striking and effective a feature existed in a source common to both, it is difficult to understand why Chrêtien omitted it; he could have had no such grudge109 against the Order of Templars as he would reasonably have against the House of Anjou, and it is equally difficult to believe that if it was not in the source, Wolfram departed from his avowed105 principle of fidelity so far as to introduce it.
We also find the same ideas introduced in a different context; thus, when Perceval leaves his mother to go out into the world, among her counsels the French poet includes, ’Preudom ne forconselle nie celui ki tient sa compagnie‘; in Wolfram we have no such phrase, but when Parzival arrives at Gurnemanz’s Castle we find him saying, ’M?n muoter saget al war, Alt mannes rede stêt niht se var,’ which in the Parzival she did not say. It is evident that in the two versions counsel and application have become separated, and in this case again it seems more probable that the counsel would originally have been given without the application, as by Chrêtien, than vice110 versa as by Wolfram. On the other hand, Mr. Nutt points out in his Studies that Perceval’s recognition of the knights as angels is quite at variance with his mother’s representation of armed men as devils, whereas in the Parzival the whole episode is clear and consistent. Here the French poet has evidently dropped out something, and there are other instances, such as the names of Gurnemanz’s sons, in which the German poem seems to have followed an older tradition.
But on the whole, a careful comparison of the two poems seems to show that Wolfram’s version is further removed from the original form of the story than is Chrêtien’s, and that therefore the probability is that the common basis of the two poems was a work known to the two French poets.
In support of this theory it may be noted as a curious fact that while Chrêtien avowedly bases his poem on a book given to him by the Count of Flanders, Wolfram’s poem really contains more references to Flanders than Chrêtien’s does. Thus we have several allusions to Lambekein, Duke of Brabant; Brandelidelein of Punturtois figures prominently both in the second and in the later books, and his city ‘Der Wazzervesten stat von Punt’ (punt=pont=bridge) is suspiciously like Bruges; to say nothing of the connection of the Lohengrin story with Brabant and Antwerp. It has been pointed111 out already by critics that Gerbert, one of Chrêtien’s continuators, has the same connection of the Grail winner with the knight of the swan, which seems to indicate that the stories were not first connected by the German poet (Gerbert also connects with the Swan Knight with the Deliverer of the Holy Sepulchre, an Oriental and Crusading feature quite in harmony with what has been suggested with regard to Wolfram’s French source).
On the whole, the evidence seems to point to the conclusion that the source of Kiot’s poem was identical with the book delivered to Chrêtien by the Count of Flanders; and the connection between Wolfram and Chrêtien is that of a source from which Chrêtien drew at first, Wolfram at second hand, Wolfram’s medium having treated the legend with far more freedom and boldness than was common at that date.
Excursus C
The Interpretation and Religious Teaching of the Poem
The question of the interpretation to be placed upon the Parzival is one of the most important parts of the problem under discussion. As a rule it has been treated apart from the question of the source, for critics have been pretty generally unanimous in declaring that whatever the authority followed as to the story, its employment as a medium of ethical112 edification was due to Wolfram and to Wolfram alone. But a careful examination of the poem seems to indicate that not only were the first germs of a spiritual interpretation due to another and older writer, but also that a very close and important connection exists between the interpretation and the source, as alleged by Wolfram himself.
Now, whether we are treating of the source or of the inner signification of the poem, one of the most important elements in the question is the character of Feirefis. That this curious personality is as closely connected with the inner, as with the outer, development of the story many critics have readily admitted, and therefore the question of the origin of the character becomes one of no little importance. If we can prove that Feirefis is beyond doubt the invention of Wolfram, then we have a strong argument for believing that the ethical teaching is also entirely Wolfram’s; but if the evidence points the other way, and is in favour of the theory that Feirefis is an integral part of the original French source, then there is strong ground for believing that the semi-allegorical treatment of the subject was also part of Kiot’s scheme. Simrock feels this so strongly that he advances the close connection of Feirefis alike with the grund-idee of the poem and the first two books to prove that Wolfram must have written those books, since to him alone the moral teaching can be due.
But is the evidence in favour of the German authorship of these books? Is it not, as we have shown in the discussion of the Angevin allusions, distinctly against such a conclusion? And here we must not overlook the fact that the Angevin parentage is insisted on far more strongly in the case of Feirefis than in that of his brother; it seems indeed as if the elder brother were regarded specially113 as the son of his father, from first to last he is ‘Feirefis Angevin,’ whereas Parzival is regarded more as the son of the mother through whom he is connected with the mystic race of the Grail-kings, and bears throughout the title of ‘Waleis,’ his mother’s, not his father’s, land.
A close study of the poem seems to show that it came into Wolfram’s hands an organic whole; in spite of the strong individuality of the German poet which has stamped itself on every page, in spite of the constant personal allusions, of the characteristic form into which he has remoulded the story, we feel that he has never lost sight of the original conception, but, even while working out his own interpretation, has allowed the thread of his source to run unbroken, if not untangled, to the end. And with that thread Feirefis is closely inwoven; it is at the critical moment of Parzival’s life, when the conventional faith in God as the All-wise Ruler of the world, which has been sufficient for his boyhood, fails him, that the hero first learns the existence of his unknown brother, Feirefis Angevin; from that point onward114, whenever the story will admit of an allusion to Feirefis, either directly, or indirectly115 through his love Sekundillé, that allusion is introduced, so that as we draw towards the end of the poem the mind is not unprepared for the appearance of Feirefis himself, and the combat which is the last, as it is the most desperate, of Parzival’s trials. The breaking of the sword of Ither of Gaheviess, as well as the exceptional nature of the conflict itself, is a distinct indication of a special significance attached to the incident, and one is not surprised to find that the conclusion of Parzival’s probation116 and his election to the Grail kingdom follow closely upon it. It is impossible to believe that a personality so strange as that of Feirefis, so closely connected with the hero of the poem, and brought into special prominence117 at the turning-points of his career, means nothing at all; and this when we have the contrast between Doubt and Steadfastness118, Darkness and Light, Black and White directly insisted upon.
The original ethical idea seems to have been simple enough; the sin of lack of faith in God, which mars an otherwise steadfast119 character. Feirefis shows, in a concrete form, the contrast sketched120 in the opening lines of Book I., and Parzival’s final conflict with his parti-coloured brother signified the final victory over Doubt which rendered him worthy to win the Grail. The idea of working some such motif121 into the story may very likely have arisen from a wish to supply a better and more adequate reason for Parzival’s interview with the Hermit122, an episode which, as the Parzival shows, is capable of far finer treatment than it has received in any other version. (It must not be forgotten that Parzival’s passionate123 outbreak and defiance124 of God is found nowhere else, and that the duty of trust in God and reliance upon Him in the hour of trouble has been distinctly part of his early teaching, and that there too the ‘black and white’ contrast has been insisted upon.) The idea thus first suggested, the circumstances of a residence in the East, where such a conflict between light and darkness was actually being carried on, determined125 the form into which it should be cast. It is extremely difficult to understand how Wolfram, if he only possessed the Perceval legend in an incomplete form, conceived the idea of supplementing it in this special manner; but if Kiot be responsible for the first introduction of the religious idea, as he was of the Angevin, the problem becomes perfectly easy, his conception of the struggle in the soul of man was simply a reflection of the struggle as he saw it in the world.
(It cannot be too strongly insisted upon, that no princes of the day were more strongly affected126 by the Crusading spirit, or more closely connected with the East than the Angevin princes; and that to assume on the part of one of their followers127 the familiarity with Crusading ideas which is here ascribed to ‘Kiot’ is to do little more than state a commonplace fact of history.)
But that the idea of the poem has, in a measure, undergone a change, and that the Parzival in its present shape owes much to the genius of the man who, probably attracted by the ethical turn Kiot had given to the story, took it into his own hands, and, remodelling128 it, sent it forth129 to the world a heritage for all generations, may readily be granted. No careful reader of the poem can fail to feel that the interpretation is a double one; that if there are passages which seem to treat of Faith and Doubt only as they affect the position of the soul towards God, there are others which as clearly treat of the same questions as affecting man’s relation to his fellow-men; in which faith is interpreted in its widest sense as a loyal fulfilment of all obligations, social as well as religious; and that all this is summed up and expressed in the inculcation of loyalty to the dictates130 of the knightly131 order in their highest form.
Occasionally these two ideas obviously clash, as when in Book IX. Trevrezent tells Parzival that the Grail cannot be won by human effort, and asks, ‘Wilt thou force thy God with thine anger?’ and in Book XVI. practically takes back his words and admits that this is what Parzival has done. The true solution of the puzzle seems to be neither in interpreting the poem exclusively as an allegory of the struggle in the soul of man, nor exclusively as a confession132 of faith in the knightly order as a means of salvation133, but rather in admitting that the poem sets forth both these views, and that the lines of thought cross and recross and overlie one another according as Wolfram reproduced the ideas of the older poet, or overlaid them with his own.
And if we will believe in the real personality of ‘Kiot,’ we may find that the religious teaching of the poem gains a new significance; deeply religious it undoubtedly is, full of a profound trust in God, a deep conviction of the individual relationship existing between the soul and its Maker134, and a simple acceptance of the elementary doctrines135 of Christianity, the Trinity, the Incarnation, and Its extension through the initial Sacrament of Baptism; but with all this there is a complete absence of ecclesiasticism, and a lack of features familiar to us in other works of the day.
It is very curious that, constantly as Baptism is insisted upon as essential to salvation, the equal necessity for the Second Great Sacrament of the Faith is passed over. It is perfectly true that Wolfram’s knights attend Mass, and that Mass is apparently celebrated136 with regularity137, but here their obligation seems to end; never once do we hear of one of his knights communicating, even Gamuret, when dying, though he receives absolution, does not receive the viaticum (the account of Vivians’ death in Willehalm seems to show that elsewhere Wolfram, in common with other writers of the day, did acknowledge this necessity). Again, though Parzival comes to the Hermit’s cell on Good Friday, and spends fourteen days in his company, confessing and receiving absolution, we have no mention of the Easter Communion in the German poem, though we have in the French. In Book X. the wounded knight, whom Gawain succours, asks to be helped to a spital that his wounds may be attended to; in Chrêtien’s version he expresses his fear of dying unabsolved and uncommunicated, and would seek a Hermit who lives near at hand for that purpose. And this difference between the two versions meets us at every turn; Chrêtien abounds in allusions to the hours of prayer; if he wishes to indicate the time when any special event happens he mentions that it is just after Prime, or between Tierce and Noon; Perceval says that if he finds his mother he will make her a veiled nun138, and the mother’s counsels in the French poem are emphatic139 on the subject of Perceval’s religious duties, which Wolfram wholly omits; Chrêtien’s characters constantly invoke140 the saints, which Wolfram’s knights never do; when Parzival is in imminent141 danger of death it is to his wife, and not to a patron saint, that he looks for aid. Wolfram is always a religious poet, but, if we compare his other important poem the Willehalm with the Parzival, we cannot help feeling that the former is decidedly more in harmony with the thought of his day, and less curiously142 ’modern‘ in tone than the latter. It is difficult to resist the conviction that some of the special peculiarities of the Parzival are due to Wolfram’s source quite as much as to Wolfram himself.
It is a commonplace of history that one effect of the contact between heathen and Christian84 races brought about by the Crusades was the awakening143 of a spirit of tolerance144 between the brave men on either side. In a day when manly145 strength and courage were accounted of such value it was impossible that the existence of such qualities on the side of the heathen should not, in the opinion of many, go far to counterbalance their lack of Christianity; and it is certain that among those long resident in the East such tolerance eventually led to laxity in matters both of faith and practice. It was such laxity that was the ostensible146 reason for the fall of the Knights Templars. In the case of a poem, which otherwise gives indication of familiarity with Oriental custom and tradition, is it unreasonable147 to suggest that its peculiarities of religious treatment, its freedom from petty ecclesiastical details, the breadth and tolerance of its views, and the far more human ideal of virtue which it presents, may, at least in part, be due to the influence of the Crusading spirit which we know did, on the whole, make in these directions?
To sum up the entire question, the drift of the internal evidence of the Parzival seems to indicate that the author of Wolfram’s source was a warm partisan148 of the House of Anjou, sometime resident in the East, familiar with the History of the House whose fortunes he followed, and with much curious Oriental legend, and thoroughly imbued149 with the broader views of life and religion inspired by the Crusades. That he wrote his poem after 1172 seems most likely from the connection between England, Anjou, and Ireland noted in Book IX.; on the other hand, the parallel existing between the early history of Henry Fitz-Empress and that of the hero of the Parzival seems to show that he intended a compliment to that prince, which would fix the year of Henry’s death, 1189, as the terminus ad quem. The probabilities are that it would be written earlier, before the troubles of Henry’s later years. What we know of the extent of the Angevin rule and influence at that date renders it quite possible for us to believe that the writer was by birth a Proven?al. That the source of the poem bore a strong affinity150 to the source of Chrêtien’s Conte del Graal is certain, and the many Flemish allusions give colour to the supposition that it may have been identical with that source.
If we grant the correctness of the Angevin allusions to be found in the earlier parts of the poem, we must logically grant that these two first Books, and as a consequence the latter part of the poem which agrees with them, are due to the French source rather than the German redaction; that it was Kiot who introduced the characters of Gamuret, Belakané, Feirefis, and L?helein; and that to Kiot is due the first germ of the ethical interpretation amplified151 by Wolfram. It was probably in a great measure owing to the unecclesiastical nature of Kiot’s teaching, and the freedom with which he handled the Grail myth, that his work failed to attain152 the popularity of Chrêtien’s. When the Grail legend was once definitely stamped with the traditional-Christian character which it finally assumed and retained, the semi-pagan character of Kiot’s treatment would cause his version to be regarded with disfavour by the monkish153 compilers of his day. It is probably owing to the accident of Maude’s first husband having been Emperor of Germany that this particular presentment of the story found its way into that country; it may well be that it is, indirectly, to that very Angevin element that has for so long perplexed critics that we owe its preservation154! As regards the Grail problem itself, it therefore seems most probable that in Wolfram’s Parzival we have no really independent version of the Grail myth, such as may be taken into consideration by scholars when constructing a scientific theory of its development; but simply an interesting specimen155 of one form which, in the period of its translation from a pagan to a Christian symbol, it temporarily assumed, that form being entirely coloured and determined by the personality of the writer.
Excursus D
The Works of Wolfram Von Eschenbach
Besides the Parzival, Wolfram’s longest and, from every point of view, most important work, we possess seven songs belonging to the class known as Tage-or W?chter-Lieder; thus called because the secret lovers, who have indulged their passion during the hours of night, are warned by the call of the watchman from the ramparts of the approach of day and of the hour of parting. Though Wolfram made in these songs a concession156 to the lax morality of his day, the concluding lines of one of them clearly show how far superior to such unlawful passion he held the love of wedded157 wife and husband, such love as he has immortalised in Kondwiramur and Parzival. Beside these songs, we have the poems dealing158 with the loves of Siguné and Schionatulander, and classed together under the name of Titurel. Whether these are complete in themselves, and intended to serve as an explanatory addition to the Parzival, or whether they are fragments of an unfinished poem, does not very clearly appear; in any case they indicate a source identical with that of the Parzival.
Willehalm, Wolfram’s other great epic159 poem, in nine books, deals with the history of William of Orange, a contemporary of Charlemagne, whose story belongs to this cycle of French Romance. The poem is clearly derived from the old French Chanson de Geste, Aliscans, and is originally founded on the prolonged struggle between the Saracen and Christian power in the South of France, a struggle which for poetical160 purposes has been condensed into two battles of Aliscans, or Alischanz, in the first of which the Christians161 are defeated, while in the second they are victorious162. Whether this poem, too, is or is not unfinished, is a matter of debate among critics; judging from Wolfram’s method in the Parzival, the fact that he leaves the fate of his hero ‘Rennewart’ in uncertainty163, and does not even reveal the secret of his parentage and close connection with William’s wife, seems to indicate that he did not finish the poem. Willehalm abounds in references to the Parzival, and in similar turns of thought and expression, and has some passages of great beauty. The Titurel is also written in a more elaborate metre than the other poems, and some doubt has been expressed as to which of these two represents Wolfram’s latest work. The style of both is more finished than that of the Parzival, but they are both inferior alike in depth of thought and human interest to this, the greatest work of Germany’s greatest medi?val poet.
The End
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
peculiarities
|
|
| n. 特质, 特性, 怪癖, 古怪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
peculiar
|
|
| adj.古怪的，异常的；特殊的，特有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
ingenuity
|
|
| n.别出心裁；善于发明创造 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
genealogy
|
|
| n.家系，宗谱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
legendary
|
|
| adj.传奇（中）的，闻名遐迩的；n.传奇（文学） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
hereditary
|
|
| adj.遗传的，遗传性的，可继承的，世袭的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
allusions
|
|
| 暗指，间接提到( allusion的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
allusion
|
|
| n.暗示，间接提示 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
possessed
|
|
| adj.疯狂的；拥有的，占有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
reign
|
|
| n.统治时期，统治，支配，盛行；v.占优势 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
demon
|
|
| n.魔鬼，恶魔 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
noted
|
|
| adj.著名的，知名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
moorish
|
|
| adj.沼地的，荒野的，生[住]在沼地的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
din
|
|
| n.喧闹声，嘈杂声 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
reigned
|
|
| vi.当政，统治（reign的过去式形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
besieged
|
|
| 包围，围困，围攻( besiege的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
knight
|
|
| n.骑士，武士；爵士 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
knights
|
|
| 骑士； （中古时代的）武士( knight的名词复数 )； 骑士； 爵士； （国际象棋中）马 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
overthrew
|
|
| overthrow的过去式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
undoubtedly
|
|
| adv.确实地，无疑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
foes
|
|
| 敌人，仇敌( foe的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
usurpation
|
|
| n.篡位；霸占 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
armour
|
|
| （=armor）n.盔甲；装甲部队 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
besieging
|
|
| 包围，围困，围攻( besiege的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
victuals
|
|
| n.食物；食品 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
derived
|
|
| vi.起源；由来；衍生；导出v.得到( derive的过去式和过去分词 )；（从…中）得到获得；源于；（从…中）提取 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
peculiarity
|
|
| n.独特性，特色；特殊的东西；怪癖 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
coveted
|
|
| adj.令人垂涎的；垂涎的，梦寐以求的v.贪求，觊觎(covet的过去分词)；垂涎；贪图 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
alteration
|
|
| n.变更，改变；蚀变 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
dominions
|
|
| 统治权( dominion的名词复数 )； 领土； 疆土； 版图 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
abounds
|
|
| v.大量存在，充满，富于( abound的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
insignificant
|
|
| adj.无关紧要的，可忽略的，无意义的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
notably
|
|
| adv.值得注意地，显著地，尤其地，特别地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
sunder
|
|
| v.分开；隔离；n.分离，分开 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
Ford
|
|
| n.浅滩，水浅可涉处；v.涉水，涉过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
perilous
|
|
| adj.危险的，冒险的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
alludes
|
|
| 提及，暗指( allude的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
sage
|
|
| n.圣人，哲人；adj.贤明的，明智的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
mythological
|
|
| adj.神话的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
alleged
|
|
| a.被指控的，嫌疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
derives
|
|
| v.得到( derive的第三人称单数 )；（从…中）得到获得；源于；（从…中）提取 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
interpretation
|
|
| n.解释，说明，描述；艺术处理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
slain
|
|
| 杀死，宰杀，杀戮( slay的过去分词 )； (slay的过去分词) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
briefly
|
|
| adv.简单地，简短地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
avows
|
|
| v.公开声明，承认( avow的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
48
astronomer
|
|
| n.天文学家 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
confirmation
|
|
| n.证实，确认，批准 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
testimony
|
|
| n.证词；见证，证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
abounding
|
|
| adj.丰富的，大量的v.大量存在，充满，富于( abound的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
glorification
|
|
| n.赞颂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
perplexed
|
|
| adj.不知所措的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
glorify
|
|
| vt.颂扬，赞美，使增光，美化 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
reigning
|
|
| adj.统治的，起支配作用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
fidelity
|
|
| n.忠诚，忠实；精确 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
dwellers
|
|
| n.居民，居住者( dweller的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
evasion
|
|
| n.逃避，偷漏(税) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
explicit
|
|
| adj.详述的，明确的；坦率的；显然的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
beset
|
|
| v.镶嵌；困扰，包围 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
rendering
|
|
| n.表现，描写 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
divesting
|
|
| v.剥夺( divest的现在分词 )；脱去（衣服）；2。从…取去…；1。（给某人）脱衣服 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
fatuous
|
|
| adj.愚昧的；昏庸的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
edifice
|
|
| n.宏伟的建筑物(如宫殿，教室) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
decadence
|
|
| n.衰落，颓废 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
patriotic
|
|
| adj.爱国的，有爱国心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
loyalty
|
|
| n.忠诚，忠心 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
narrative
|
|
| n.叙述，故事；adj.叙事的，故事体的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
champagne
|
|
| n.香槟酒；微黄色 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
adherent
|
|
| n.信徒，追随者，拥护者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
undesirable
|
|
| adj.不受欢迎的，不良的，不合意的，讨厌的；n.不受欢迎的人，不良分子 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
annexed
|
|
| [法] 附加的，附属的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
considerably
|
|
| adv.极大地；相当大地；在很大程度上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
permanently
|
|
| adv.永恒地，永久地，固定不变地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
adherents
|
|
| n.支持者，拥护者( adherent的名词复数 )；党羽；徒子徒孙 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
remodelled
|
|
| v.改变…的结构[形状]( remodel的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
thoroughly
|
|
| adv.完全地，彻底地，十足地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
guardians
|
|
| 监护人( guardian的名词复数 )； 保护者，维护者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
talisman
|
|
| n.避邪物，护身符 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
virtue
|
|
| n.德行，美德；贞操；优点；功效，效力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
Christian
|
|
| adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
talismans
|
|
| n.护身符( talisman的名词复数 )；驱邪物；有不可思议的力量之物；法宝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
worthy
|
|
| adj.(of)值得的，配得上的；有价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
relic
|
|
| n.神圣的遗物，遗迹，纪念物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
maidens
|
|
| 处女( maiden的名词复数 )； 少女； 未婚女子； （板球运动）未得分的一轮投球 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
shrine
|
|
| n.圣地，神龛，庙；v.将...置于神龛内，把...奉为神圣 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
gems
|
|
| growth； economy； management； and customer satisfaction 增长 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
differentiate
|
|
| vi.(between)区分；vt.区别；使不同 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
fen
|
|
| n.沼泽，沼池 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
ostrich
|
|
| n.鸵鸟 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
likeness
|
|
| n.相像，相似（之处） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
profusion
|
|
| n.挥霍；丰富 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
superfluous
|
|
| adj.过多的，过剩的，多余的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
spoke
|
|
| n.（车轮的）辐条；轮辐；破坏某人的计划；阻挠某人的行动 v.讲，谈（speak的过去式）；说；演说；从某种观点来说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
anterior
|
|
| adj.较早的；在前的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
variance
|
|
| n.矛盾，不同 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
deliberately
|
|
| adv.审慎地；蓄意地；故意地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
chateau
|
|
| n.城堡，别墅 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
avowedly
|
|
| adv.公然地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
avowed
|
|
| adj.公开声明的，承认的v.公开声明，承认( avow的过去式和过去分词) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
adherence
|
|
| n.信奉，依附，坚持，固着 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
archaic
|
|
| adj.(语言、词汇等)古代的，已不通用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
organisation
|
|
| n.组织，安排，团体，有机休 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
grudge
|
|
| n.不满，怨恨，妒嫉；vt.勉强给，不情愿做 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
vice
|
|
| n.坏事；恶习；[pl.]台钳，老虎钳；adj.副的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
pointed
|
|
| adj.尖的，直截了当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
ethical
|
|
| adj.伦理的，道德的，合乎道德的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
specially
|
|
| adv.特定地；特殊地；明确地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
onward
|
|
| adj.向前的，前进的；adv.向前，前进，在先 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
indirectly
|
|
| adv.间接地，不直接了当地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
probation
|
|
| n.缓刑(期)，(以观后效的)察看；试用(期) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
prominence
|
|
| n.突出；显著；杰出；重要 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
steadfastness
|
|
| n.坚定，稳当 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
steadfast
|
|
| adj.固定的，不变的，不动摇的；忠实的；坚贞不移的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
sketched
|
|
| v.草拟（sketch的过去式与过去分词形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
motif
|
|
| n.(图案的)基本花纹，(衣服的)花边；主题 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
hermit
|
|
| n.隐士，修道者；隐居 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
passionate
|
|
| adj.热情的，热烈的，激昂的，易动情的，易怒的，性情暴躁的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
defiance
|
|
| n.挑战，挑衅，蔑视，违抗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
determined
|
|
| adj.坚定的；有决心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
affected
|
|
| adj.不自然的，假装的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
followers
|
|
| 追随者( follower的名词复数 )； 用户； 契据的附面； 从动件 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
remodelling
|
|
| v.改变…的结构[形状]( remodel的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
dictates
|
|
| n.命令，规定，要求( dictate的名词复数 )v.大声讲或读( dictate的第三人称单数 )；口授；支配；摆布 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
knightly
|
|
| adj. 骑士般的 adv. 骑士般地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
confession
|
|
| n.自白，供认，承认 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
salvation
|
|
| n.（尤指基督）救世，超度，拯救，解困 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
maker
|
|
| n.制造者，制造商 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
doctrines
|
|
| n.教条( doctrine的名词复数 )；教义；学说；（政府政策的）正式声明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
celebrated
|
|
| adj.有名的，声誉卓著的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
regularity
|
|
| n.规律性，规则性；匀称，整齐 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
nun
|
|
| n.修女，尼姑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
emphatic
|
|
| adj.强调的，着重的；无可置疑的，明显的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
invoke
|
|
| v.求助于(神、法律)；恳求，乞求 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
imminent
|
|
| adj.即将发生的，临近的，逼近的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
curiously
|
|
| adv.有求知欲地；好问地；奇特地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
awakening
|
|
| n.觉醒，醒悟 adj.觉醒中的；唤醒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
tolerance
|
|
| n.宽容；容忍，忍受；耐药力；公差 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
manly
|
|
| adj.有男子气概的；adv.男子般地，果断地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
ostensible
|
|
| adj.(指理由)表面的，假装的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
unreasonable
|
|
| adj.不讲道理的，不合情理的，过度的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
partisan
|
|
| adj.党派性的；游击队的；n.游击队员；党徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
imbued
|
|
| v.使（某人/某事）充满或激起（感情等）( imbue的过去式和过去分词 )；使充满；灌输；激发（强烈感情或品质等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
affinity
|
|
| n.亲和力，密切关系 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
amplified
|
|
| 放大，扩大( amplify的过去式和过去分词 )； 增强； 详述 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
attain
|
|
| vt.达到，获得，完成 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
monkish
|
|
| adj.僧侣的，修道士的，禁欲的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
preservation
|
|
| n.保护，维护，保存，保留，保持 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
155
specimen
|
|
| n.样本，标本 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
156
concession
|
|
| n.让步，妥协；特许(权) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
157
wedded
|
|
| adj.正式结婚的；渴望…的，执著于…的v.嫁，娶，（与…）结婚( wed的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
158
dealing
|
|
| n.经商方法，待人态度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
159
epic
|
|
| n.史诗，叙事诗；adj.史诗般的，壮丽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
160
poetical
|
|
| adj.似诗人的；诗一般的；韵文的；富有诗意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
161
Christians
|
|
| n.基督教徒( Christian的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
162
victorious
|
|
| adj.胜利的，得胜的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
163
uncertainty
|
|
| n.易变，靠不住，不确知，不确定的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |