This comment was written by Tynan Holt on 5 Apr 2016.
34:01-36:10
An overarching difference between the two works can be gleaned from a line in Wagner’s play that handles race, however underhandedly, in a fundamentally different way than Wolfram’s literature. When Gurnamanz is lamenting the King’s condition (20:14-20:47) the music behind is mournful and emotional during the first admission, which then grows to a vehement din and then moves slowly back into a tender amalgam of sounds. Coupled with his words, “how it grieves my heart to see the liege lord of a conquering race fall a slave to his sickness”, a key difference between Wolfram and Wagner is revealed- Anti-Semitism. Though Wolfram von Eschenbach was definitely colorful and imaginative (see: imaginary name-dropping throughout Parzival and Titurel) his work does not appear overtly racist. Granted, a certain level of misunderstanding of racial identity can be expected for medieval literature, which comes from vastly different conceptions of race, especially of bi-racial or mixed-race people, and the correlation between race and religion. In addition to the underlying tones of the two works, the wounding of Amfortas, though similar in its resolution and overall result, is divergent in its details from Wolfram’s Parzival. Though it is stated differently who the King’s savior will be (at 24:40-25:05) and only his characteristics are mentioned such as “enlightened through compassion” and an “innocent fool”, alluding to Parzival, the injury remains the same. Throughout the description of Amfortas’ misfortune, the tempo slows and quickens with the pace of the story, emotive and thoughtful through the parts when Gurnamanz is mourning the pain that has befallen his master, and violent and suspenseful through parts where Gurnamanz is vengefully describing the “woman of fearsome beauty” who bewitched him.
According to Wagner’s play, the “hallowed spear” was “wielded by unhallowed hands”, which is in accordance with “it was a heathen who fought there and rode that joust against him” (von Eschenbach, 202). Other than that, there are few places where the two works line up. Although, the adversary in Wolfram’s version is not specified to be male or female, whereas Wagner’s version specifically calls attention to the Fisher King’s adversary as a temptress who “bewitched” him, who laid him in her arms, “intoxicated”. This contrasts to the image of the adversary presented in Parzival, “born in Ethnise, where the Tigris flows forth from Paradise” who is an androgynous figure. The reader assumes this figure as male because of the background that medieval literature sets up (men being protagonists and antagonists, and women usually as bystanders or auxiliary characters) (von Eschenbach, 202). However, they are both presented as heathen/pagan/non-Christian. Another notable difference is the king’s accompaniment. Wolfram states “’the king was out riding alone’” whereas Wagner’s version is told by Gurnamanz, who claims he was there and furthermore that he “rushed in” after the king let the spear fall during his intoxicated stint in the sorceress’ arms (von Eschenbach, 202). This is a minor difference, but one that is, I think, a stylistic and logistic detail. It is more possible to have Gurnamanz retell the story because the retelling takes place in the beginning of the opera versus the middle of the book, rather than introducing the hermit, and finding a new way of retelling the story without including that he is telling Parzival of his brother's misfortune.
