Fool548891@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Hey. 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"
|
