While reading Parzival I cannot help but think of last weeks reading and Arthur's reaction to the quest. The question was raised in class (I think...) whether or not Arthur could survive with the grail. With the Arthur's eminent fall, the answer is obviously no. I feel this comes as a result that he is too deeply rooted in the Celtic and pagan history to be able to last in a world of Christianity. His extreme response to everyone leaving in a way demonstrates his knowledge that the hunt for Christianity will leave him behind. With all of his knights attention toward a more religious experience, Arthur's court crumbles.
Just a thought! Anyone want to share their insights?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ashley, I agree that the Christianization of the knights makes it impossible for Arthur's court to survive. I feel like the magic/power of Arthur and his court are tied to the magic/marvels of Britain, which the grail quest essentially killed. I also think that part of the magic of Arthur's court is that there is a seeming wholeness to it, and that wholeness can't stand up to the confrontation with or superposition of a larger power structure that is supposed to supercede it.
ReplyDeleteI'm sympathetic with the disposition behind the post and the first comment, but I think the situation is a bit less tidy than this admittedly neat formula suggests. For one thing, there's a lot of Christianity associated with Arthur early on, and it persists as his legend is further developed; for another, the authentic Celtic quality of his origins and activities may not be that persistent in the stories told by writers from non-Celtic backgrounds (like, presumably, the author(s) of the Quest & the Lancelot-Grail cycle).
ReplyDeleteThere's also a seeming paradox in the seeming destructiveness of the Grail quest given that the only Round Table knights actually lost to the Grail itself are Perceval and Galahad; others lose their lives during the quest, most notoriously at each other's hands (such as Bagdemagus and Calogrenant, slain by Gawain and Lionel), but there's nothing to stop Arthur reconstituting the missing places at the Round Table by initiating new knights.
Still, as I say, I'm sympathetic to these views, because it IS the case that Arthur's court doesn't really recover from the changes and challenges brought by the Grail. I just wouldn't want to attribute all of it to the contest between Celtic and Christian streams, given the Christianity of Celtic elements and the likely ignorance of the literary history by non-Celtic authors.
I tend to agree with Mike. Reading the introduction to the secondary reading, it is clear that the German writers (in our case, Wolfram)and nobility were not concerned with Arthur the celtic king or his Trojan anecedents. They were concerned with the Arthurian legends that connected them with the Germanic knights at the court of King Arthur (which seems plausible as Arthur had many foreign knights; re: Lanval). According to the source Parzival is German. Parzival's ancestory is Nordic with a tenuous link to a Briton King and to a fairy. The latter part is not that Christian after all.
ReplyDeleteWolfram story seems very similar to Chretien's since Chretien was writing his romances while in Flanders. I think the reason the Round Table falls apart is that once the Grail is achieved, there is nothing more to live for. Also only the purist knights can hope to go on the quest and as we see except for Galahad and Parzival (and Bors except for one sin)none of the others have been able to resist feminine charms. So in a way, there is no tournament or glory left to fight for now. What can be greater than the Quest? I wonder if I am making sense here. Reading the chapter on Bors from last week's reading left me confused. I see why Dr Wenthe wanted us to be sure and read it. What had happened to Lionel? It was a depressing chapter. Somehow the knights of the Round Table are becoming tarnished.
On a brighter note; although the first chapter of Parzival was difficult to get through, the rest of the tale was very interesting bar the unpronouncible names. Wolfram is a very intrusive narrator, worse than Chaucer! His comments are tongue-in-cheek(?)and really amusing. His style kept my attention once the first chapter was over. He is also far more racy than his French or British predecessors.
Also we have a different Arthur yet again. This one seems older and more resigned. By the way, I wasnt very sure where Arthur was holding court and where exactly Parzeval was. It seems he should have been in Spain?
I do agree that there is something fundamentally non Christian about Arthur's court- no matter the early association with it. Or rather than non-christian, an uncomfortable fit with the Christian church. This strain shows up throughout Arthur and is only frustrated by chivalry and the grail having a sort of rivalry in the texts as we proceed... Also, there is a consistent theme of Arthur turning away from the physical needs of England and the emotional needs of his court and it being disastrous to "Camelot" (as an ideal and a place). It seems no different with the grail. The further Arthur and his knights look to heaven, the grimmer it looks for England.
ReplyDeleteIt's almost funny that we're all talking about Arthur's death...1,500 years later. While the connections of the grail quest to the dismantling of the Round Table are interesting to consider (and bear with me, I haven't read Malory or T.H.White), in many ways Arthur is still alive today just by surfacing in so many contemporary works and pop culture references. On one hand I agree that we should explore the factors that contribute to Arthur's death, but on the other hand it is interesting to look at the sustainability of Arthur and his fellows. There's something so adaptable about these characters and their quests that I think there's room for a Christian Arthur as well as a Taoist or Agnostic one. This might echo an earlier post by Tara concerning the Shuten Doji and "Arthurian" (as imposed by Western Society) archetypes in other cultures.
ReplyDeleteActually we dont really see Camelot as such. The knights are always meeting Arthur at different fields when they send a messenger to the town he happens to be staying in at that time. I cannot help wondering how they always know where he is. I feel that both the king and queen are taking on a more patriachal role in Wolfram. No one mentions Arthur's age but his young knights are getting married and settling down as kings in different "lands." I am not sure how "Christian" a tale Wolfram has written. Yes, he does mention the hermits (who incidently, are all related to him)telling Parzival how to behave; also Parzival's brother must be baptized in order to marry the Fisher king's sister, and there is a mention of the Trinity but it is not as Christian as the Quest was. In fact, the baptism was funny as it appears that Feirefiz was doing it to get the girl. Also, in this tale Arthur appears more comfortable with all that is happening to his knights. He invites the younger knights to join his Table and is very supportive of their needs.
ReplyDeleteWolfram doesn't mention Arthur's age, but he hints at various places in the text that Arthur is rather getting on in his years. Although still a figure of justice doling out verdicts (e.g. granting Parzival Ither's armour, punishing Urjans for rape), Arthur rules over an increasingly greying court. During the battles outside Bearosche, the Britons who utter Arthur's war-cry, "Nantes! Nantes!" are older — "Wherever they sought battle they shouted 'Nantes!' in their old style, such being their hereditary war-cry. Already the beards of some were turning grey" (197). Wolfram also makes it clear through much intertextuality that the Grail adventures are taking place well after many other Arthurian/Round Table adventures, including Erec and Enide, and Lancelot's fight with Meleagant (199). Thus, Arthur's court begins to seem aged, almost outdated, and nearing its end, while the Grail quest seems almost fresh, new and exciting. I won't argue for a pagan vs. Christian reading, as Mike's already shot that down. However ... I think juxtaposing the aging Arthur with the newness of the Grail quest (which paradoxically is itself kind of an old story nearing its end, too!) nicely prologues various modern Arthurian novels and tales (especially Mists of Avalon) in which Arthur stands on the cusp of change, a transition from older British paganism to the newer Christianity. In Wolfram, this cusp appears to be that between old and new types of knighthood, with the end of the Grail quest a sort of closure to the idealized, mythical, larger-than-life knight who faces adventures and rescues damsels in distress.
ReplyDelete