Although we’ve now moved on from Chretien’s story of the grail and Perceval, I had some lingering questions about his story that I thought I may as well address here, if anything just to get them off my mind so that I can focus on our new grail story.
Chretien’s story of Perceval really seemed to me to be a story focused on knowledge and education. It’s clear from the beginning, and Perceval’s first few monologues, that Perceval’s main source for information in life up to that point has been his mother. “My lady mother spoke the truth,” “my mother did not lie to me” (383) and “my mother herself said that one must” all collectively tell us this. It’s when Perceval begins to seek knowledge from others, beginning with that passing knight who, though he finds Perceval annoying still proclaims “before I leave I’ll tell him everything he wants to know”, that Perceval’s worldview begins to widen and with it comes his desire to venture away from the realm of his mother and her teachings.
Initially this distancing from his mother’s knowledge seems to be a good thing. His mother’s teachings are in a rather round about way declared inadequate by King Arthur when he, in reference to Perceval says that “though the boy is naïve, still he may be of very noble line; and if his folly has come from poor teaching, because he had a low-bred master, he can still prove brave and wise” (393). The only master the boy ever had was his mother, so she must be the low-bred failure of a teacher that produced an ill-educated Perceval. Even though Gornemant at first praises Perceval’s education, “blessed be your mother, for she advised you well” (398), at the end of his own instruction of Perceval he changed his tune and warns Perceval to “never again claim, dear brother, […] that your mother taught or instructed you.” His reasoning behind warning Perceval being that should he “continue to say that, people will take you for a fool.” So, though intitially Gornemant said that Perceval should swear to “believe your mother’s advice and mine,” (399) he later changes that to, ‘no, really, actually, just mine, forget Mom.’
I have trouble reconciling this replacement of mentors and knowledge with what happens in the narrative. If Perceval hadn’t cast aside the teachings of his mother, do we think he would have been more likely to ask the right question when he saw the Fisher King and the grail? The Perceval who is a knight holds his tongue for fear of insulting the Fisher King. The Perceval who was an overly inquisitive boy surely wouldn’t have kept silent. I question whether this is saying that the more naturally acquired parental knowledge ought to be privledged over the later chivalric knowledge—rather perhaps, the answer is that one ought not to abandon one completely for the other but achieve some sort of balance? No one can deny that Perceval is a better knight for having learned from Gornemant. Then again, even Gornemant in the text at one point isn’t given total credit for creating, through his teachings, Perceval as brilliant knight. Perceval is described as almost a natural talent, “he began to carry the lance and shield as properly as if throughout his life he had frequented the tournaments, for it came naturally to him; and since Nature was his teacher and his heart was set upon it, nothing for which Nature and his heart strove could be difficult” (399-400). Nature is the teacher here, not Gornemant. Is Nature a reference back to the mother? Or is Perceval ultimately his own creator? He is as we discussed in class, a self-made man, at least when we compare him to Gawain.
Really I suppose it’s a miracle that Perceval learned anything, since he never seems to be listening to any of his ‘teachers’ in the text. He “paid scarcely any attention to what his mother said” (387) and “did not give a fig for anything the king told him.”
So, what do we make of the education of Perceval?
True, Chretien does seem to value familial education over vocational experience. Wolfram, however, seems more interested in the balance between the two types of learning -- or rather, exploring whether or not they can be balanced. Parzival’s relationship with his mother is basically the same as Percival’s, so I won’t bother comparing the two, but I would like to talk about the way Parzival’s relationship with his brother contributes to his knightly education.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the narrative, Parzival’s identity remains fragmented; he’s not able to put the knowledge he’s gained into personal context, so he’s constantly searching for guidance, even as he grows older. Because he’s so unaware of his own motives, he can’t lay claim to a specific identity or purpose. Feirefiz, on the other hand, though his complexion implies duality, is more confident in his heritage, and comes from a relatively stable background. Unlike Parzival, who’s royal lineage was hidden from him as a child, Feirefiz grows up with a very specific family and a very specific religious culture. Essentially, he’s received a steady education since birth.
Feirefiz’s character is pretty simplistic, in that he doesn’t struggle to change. When he suddenly renounces his religion in favor of a new one, the speed of his conversion calls attention to the painfully slow maturation of his half-brother. Because he’s so firmly rooted in his familial history, he’s able to adapt to his newly baptized self without becoming as lost as Parzival.
At the end of Parzival’s educational journey, he’s still in a precarious state of learning. He’s the Grail King, but the grail is such an unsteady artifact, being its keeper is kind of a vague job. Parzival is still surrounded by questions, while Feirefiz has no need for them. Wolfram seems interested in investigating incompleteness, and the brothers’ relationship reflects his fascination with things that don’t quite fit together as neatly as they appear to. In fact, I’d say the only thread of stability in Parzival is instability.
I think the the issue that Perceval faces is not so much which type of learning is better, but rather what the true value of learning actually is. The advice he gets from his mother is similarly well meaning, and without understanding the reasons it was given, similarly disastrous. If it were not for his mothers teachings, he would never have assaulted the lady in the tent and stolen her ring.
ReplyDeleteIt is not the instructions that are the problem, but Percevals misinterpretations of them. Without any experience or knowledge of his own, the instructions from Gornemant and his mother are the only ways he knows how to interact with the world. He does not have the ordinary experiences that would inform him of the context of these instructions. Without understanding the purpose for his mentors' teachings, he has no way of knowing what situations might be exceptions. So while I agree with Jenny that his problems arise from following one path too closely, I think that rather than combining the teachings of his mother and Gornemant, he needed to learn the context of the situations the instructions were intended for before he could truly make informed decisions.