English The book is The Norton introduction to Literature Kelly j. Mays
hi whatsup 123
OneGralToRuleThemAllhighlighted.docxFulcher 4
James Fulcher
Professor Christine Neufeld
LITR 590
20 July 2013
One Gral to Rule Them All Comment by James Fulcher: Title is 12 point font no bold or italics.
The Fisher King has always been one of the most interesting and enigmatic characters in the Aurthurian cycle. Whether the writer of the Grail tale is Chretian De Troyes, Sir Thomas Malory, or any of the other major Arthurian sources, the Fisher King has fascinated scholars for many, many years. Most are concerned with tracing and analogizing his wound in terms of sexual impotency and how his form of kingship juxtaposes itself with the kingship of the next Grail King. However, the Fisher King, Anfortas, in Wolfram von Eschenbach’s Parzival, appears to also be a failure as the Grail King. During Anfortas's rule, it is the Gral that seems to be doing most of the ruling, while the Fisher King is portrayed as a subject to the Gral’s power. In order to investigate this theory, I will build upon the ideas of Patrick Geary concerning the importance of relics in the Medieval network of the ruling class, and how these objects might stand in for ineffectual leaders, and wrest the control of society away from inadequate kings. I will also draw on the work of Catherine Walker-Bynum, who sheds much needed light on the state of material obsession within the Medieval Catholic religion, and H.B. Willson who wrote in the 1960s on the different portrayals of rule demonstrated in Anfortas and Parzival. Comment by James Fulcher: The introduction begins by discussing previous work on the topic I am writing about, then demonstrates how I intend to branch off. This helps to demonstrate that there is a reason for writing this essay. Comment by James Fulcher: Thesis Comment by James Fulcher: Plan of action
In his essay “Sacred Commodities: The Circulation of Medieval Relics,” Geary acknowledges that in the 11th century there was a definite trend in relics influencing entire communities. He points out that “During periods of relatively weak central government... relics were prized … for their ability to substitute for public authority, protect and secure the community,[and] determine the relative status of individuals” (Appadurai 179). It is important that we break down Geary’s theory into individual components and unpack the way these ideas can be found in Parzival. First, while Geary is focused on an earlier time period than Wolfram’s, it is during the author’s own period, the late 12th and early 13th, that discussions of Christian objects and their influence was becoming a hot topic for debate (Walker-Bynum 19). Wolfram’s audience would have probably been familiar with the relics flooding into the Roman-Catholic world and with the division these things were beginning to cause in the religion. Anfortas is not just sexually ineffectual, but is also ineffectual as a king. As evidence of the first of Geary’s assertions, Wolfram’s sixteenth chapter addresses the lack of agency and deep self loathing that a good king should overcome, or at least work through, in the interests of local morale and subjugation. Anfortas has at this point in the narrative lost the will to live or to rule. In fact, he spends most of his portion of the chapter begging his vassals to either let him die or let him kill himself. He even confronts them with the question, “What good am I as your lord?” (391). Instead of adhering to this king’s wishes, his subjects force him to seek solace and healing from the Gral. Again, the thing here is of more importance and more influential than Anfortas's wishes and commands. Even the people of Munsalvaesh acknowledge that Anfortas is an impotent king, though they still have a great deal of respect for him. He is “their very heart, and source of their abounding sorrow” (393). Comment by James Fulcher: Signal phrase introduces author and the article title. Standard form. Comment by James Fulcher: Ellipses mark where information in the original source was left out Comment by James Fulcher: Brackets show where I inserted a word into the quote. Comment by James Fulcher: Parenthetical indirect source Comment by James Fulcher: Acknowledging issues with a source and demonstrating how it still applies to my thesis by incorporating another source as evidence. Comment by James Fulcher: Comment by James Fulcher: Parenthetical reference because the source is not introduced in a signal phrase.
I turn now to the second point in Geary’s argument: that of relics providing safety and stability for the people in the object’s sphere of influence. Once the Gral procession has entered Anfortas's great hall and the table has been erected to hold the object, the people come forward and “whatever one stretched out one’s hand for in the presence of the Gral, it was waiting, one found it all ready and to hand-- dishes warm, dishes cold, new-fangled dishes and old favorites, the meat of beasts both tame and wild” (Eschenbach 126). Here the Gral is providing sustenance for its people. The reference is not about items of luxury or things that will make life easier for them, like a new plow or a sword. The Gral produces food; something that everyone needs and is normally allocated and disbursed by the ruler of the community. In contrast, just before the Gral procession enters the hall, Anfortas sits on his sickbed in rich furs and costly garments (?). Comment by James Fulcher: Transition sentence from one point to the next.
Of course, Geary’s third point, that relics also determine the status of individuals, is evident in its control over who becomes the Gral King. While the Gral subsumes control over Anfortas’s realm, making the Fisher King less important in the network of Munsalveash, it also patiently waits for Parzival to return and ask the proper questions so it can give control over to him as the new Gral King. In both instances, it’s the relic, the object, that controls who will be influential, and who will be made second chair to the Gral.
With the application of Geary’s theories in mind, I will now turn some of the ways the Gral asserts its authority over that of the Fisher King. In his first visit to Munsalvaesh, Parzival witnesses the Gral ritual for the first time. During the scene, Anfortas has little to no influence over the proceedings being carried out before him. Anfortas “was more dead than alive” Comment by James Fulcher: Transition sentence from one point to the next.
(Eschenbach 123). It seems that Wolfram’s comment here is broader than simply a physical description. H. B. Willson, while not directly addressing the ineffectuality of Anfortas as king in his article, acknowledges, “Though still remaining king until the accession of Parzival he is totally devoid of strength, to say nothing of power” (557). The control the Gral asserts doesn’t stop with the Fisher King. Wolfram also makes explicit comment on other nobility being subservient to the Gral. As evidence, we should look to the initial description of the Gral procession. The 25 women who are part of the Gral procession appear to all be nobility; certainly, at least three of them are of noble birth. There is “the Countess of Tenabroc,” “a duchess,” and, of course, the princess who carries the Gral itself (Eschenbach 124-25). Here it is seemingly apparent that the nobility of Munsalvaesh serve the Gral, not the other way around. If the rulers of this realm are subject to this object, it is a short jump to recognize that the Gral rules over the entire kingdom.
