Talk:Wolfram von Eschenbach

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Birthplace candidates[edit]

I'm not too sure about these place names I've given for his birth - is Eschenbach called something else now? And is Aschbach actually a place? I'm working from notes I made, and I can't quite make out my handwriting... --Camembert

I think Aschbach is Ansbach, and that Eschenbach is too small to be on my map :( -- Someone else 22:20 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)
But not for mine ;) There actually is an Aschbach near an Eschenbach in Bavaria, but both are small villages near Bamberg. However, any search for Wolfram on Google yields German and English texts that specify Ansbach, a relatively well-known town, which is why it's referenced. -Scipius 22:25 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification/correction, both. --Camembert

I was born in Eschenbach in 1986. It exists. *random internet user*—Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.23.104.163 (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2004

Start class?[edit]

I don't consider this classification appropriate. There is little more to say on the biographical front that is not mere speculation; further info on the individual works belongs on their own pages. Under References, I have added the only general book about Wolfram in English. I suppose there is some scope for general remarks about Wolfram's language. But I can't see what else this article needs. --Pfold 12:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

OR re towns[edit]

I fact tagged in "Life", specifically bcz of the last sent

However, the evidence is circumstantial and not without problems - there are at least four other places named Eschenbachs in present-day Bavaria, and Wolframs-Eschenbach was not part of Bavaria in Wolfram's time.

Even "not without problems" deserves a ref, bcz it insinuates the change in boundaries is problematic. Maybe it is, but there may well be a sense of Bayrischkeit that cut deeper then than the petty machinations of the multitude of German princes of this time. I thot of the boundary of Bavaria as being like that of Kansas until my poor-mouthing about how weak my German is elicited from the butcher (i'm translating) "Yeah, me too: I only speak Bayrisch." If a recognized expert says it's a problem, so be it; until then, what's there is OR.
--Jerzyt 01:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Wolfram's opinions[edit]

   We carried on a bit of a debate in the edit summaries, and perhaps it is my fault that it did not get more clearly documented, by originally appearing here.

  1. I summarized by copying the tag i was adding:
    {{Dubious|reason=Occasionally the writer speaks in the first person in a preface, but it is much more likely that "Wolfram expresses" is supposed to mean "Wolfram has his narrator express". Source, plz, if i am wrong}})
  2. Pfold (talk · contribs) rv'd, and summarized
    rv - not wrong but needlessly pedantic about a perfectly standard manner of expression in discussing narrative
  3. Sindinero (talk · contribs) supported my tag, and acted on it, converting "Wolfram expresses" to "Wolfram's narrator expresses" and summarizing
    (→‎Works: Jerzy has a (non-pedantic) point; it's literary studies 101 to distinguish bt. author & narrator, even if (as here) they have the same name. See Bumke, Groos, on this issue in Parzival)

   I wouldn't mind being called pedantic for advocating this distinction in general in an encyclopedia (as i am prepared to do). But this instance of "unneeded" pedanticism is actually drastically needed: the record on Wolfram available to scholars is that copies of a handful of poetic works were attributed to him by copyists who may not have been born before his death, a grossly different situation from anyone for whom we have any hope of knowing the relationship between their opinions and those they attributed to their corresponding narrators. In fact, if our other impressions of him rest on the champion of an opinionated and vehemently enforced aesthetic (Wagner's invention in Tannhäuser) -- as IMO those of most of the readers who recognize him are likely to -- we are likely to take "expresses" quite literally, despite that lacking any basis.
--Jerzyt 00:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)