Chivalrous Contradictions

While there are a gazillion fruitful threads to trace from Parzival, I am particularly drawn to the idea of steadfast loyalty as required in Christian knights, and the ways in which Wolfram's paragons of knighthood--Parzival, Gahumet, and Feirefiz--live up to this expectation. While each of these men pursue their quests unwaveringly, their individual adventures cause them to neglect, or even abandon, their families. To me, this shirking of family duties strongly contradicts the idea of steadfast loyalty which knights are meant to stand for.

This knightly inattention to familial responsibily is criticized when Feirefiz and Parzival first realize they are brothers. As they praise the noble character of their father, Gahumet, they also note his lack in their lives. Feirefiz says:

"Valiant man, he abandoned none who relied on him -- except that he left me fatherless! I have not forgiven my father this wrong. His wife who bore me died pining for the love she had lost in him. I should much like to see that man. I have been told there never was a better knight" (373).

To which Parzival replies:

"I have never seen him either ... I have been told that he achieved great exploits....He was at the service of the ladies, and if they were sincere they honestly requited it. He practised that for which the Christian faith is still honoured today, namely steadfast loyalty. Helped by a constant heart, he subdued all falsity in his doing" (374).

Both quotes show a noble and true Gahumet, yet both admit his shortcomings as a father. He is not true to his families. In much the same way, Parzival is an absent father and husband, and his womanizing brother also abandons a wife and kingdom (though, arguably, for her glory and with her assent). While these men feel pangs of love for their sweeties, they squelch these feelings in order to focus on their careers/missions. All three seem more interested in the idea of their absent wives and how this idea relates to themselves--manifested in the manly sufferings they endure--than they seem to be with their actual wives. (This is especially the case with Feirefiz, who so easily ditches his queen for an opportunity with an even lovelier women.) The choices these knights make in picking women seem almost arbitrary. What is of importance, is that knights represent a woman. This representation is necessary in order to imbue their actions with honor and prestige--ultimately, to make less selfish what are essentially selfish pursuits.

Yet even with this emphasis on absence and individual pursuit--or perhaps because of it--family emerges as a central theme of Wolfram's story. Only after Parzival and his brother are united does he gain access to Munsalvaesche and restore health to the Fisher King. And this restoration basically turns into a huge Gral Family reunion. The event at Munsalvaesche, combined with the marriage of Itonje and Gramoflanz, and the reunion of Arthur's family, brings Wolfram's narrative to a happy resolution. There are no more bleeding lances or festering wounds to contend with, manly honor can rest unchallenged, and lovers no longer sleep alone. Basically, the world is at peace as a result of families coming together.

Are Wolfram's knightly examples not living up to the ideal of steadfast loyalty? Or does their temporary abandonment of family basically serve the greater good--that being the ultimate reunion of the Gral Family? A necessary abandonment, perhaps?

In general, how does Wolfram's story comment on a knight's responsibility to his family?