# What's the meaning of Amfortas' wound in Parsifal?



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Thank you.............:tiphat:

It makes me have the willies for some reason.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

What are willies?


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> What are willies?


http://williesgrillandicehouse.com/menu/


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> What are willies?


See Puccini! xxxxxxx


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

*What's the meaning of Amfortas' wound in Parsifal?
*
All you had to do was ask.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

amfortas said:


> *What's the meaning of Amfortas' wound in Parsifal?
> *
> All you had to do was ask.


Naughty...........


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

amfortas said:


> *What's the meaning of Amfortas' wound in Parsifal?
> *
> All you had to do was ask.


That was in Chretien de Troyes' version of the story ("What ails thee, Uncle?"). In Wagner's version there's big mama Kundry to deal with.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> That was in Chretien de Troyes' version of the story ("What ails thee, Uncle?"). In Wagner's version there's big mama Kundry to deal with.


Yes, in Chretien, when Perceval visits the court of the wounded Fisher King and sees the spear carried before him, he fails to ask its meaning, and thus misses a chance to bring healing to the fallen monarch. Later he's chastised for his folly:

_"Ah Perceval, unlucky youth!
How could you fail to ask the truth?
You would have cured the suffering
Of this good-hearted, wounded king.
He would have risen up to stand,
Regained his limbs and ruled his land.
But know now that much misery
Yourself and others soon will see."_

(My own translation, from a historical novel I wrote a few years back).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

amfortas said:


> Yes, in Chretien, when Perceval visits the court of the wounded Fisher King and sees the spear carried before him, he fails to ask its meaning, and thus misses a chance to bring healing to the fallen monarch. Later he's chastised for his folly:
> 
> _"Ah Perceval, unlucky youth!
> How could you fail to ask the truth?
> ...


That sounds interesting. Tell us more.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> That sounds interesting. Tell us more.


Off the thread topic, but since you asked: 

A sequel to _Tosca_, in which Puccini's heroine survives her leap from the Castel Sant'Angelo (as music critic Alex Ross pointed out, there's actually a ledge near the top) and goes on to further adventures. She embarks on a quest, with trials based on the four Cardinal Virtues, leading her to the famous people and great cities of Europe in 1800.

Late in the novel, in Paris, she learns the true goal of her quest is the missing tip of the spear that pierced Christ's side: while the shaft is stored beneath the dome at Saint Peter's in Rome, the tip disappeared from the Sainte-Chapelle in Paris after the Revolution. Napoleon, the Pope, the disbanded Knights of Malta, and the dethroned French royal family all have their own political imperatives to possess the reunited spear; Tosca must not only find the artifact, but also decide its ultimate fate.

So in effect, I turn Tosca into Parsifal.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

amfortas said:


> Off the thread topic, but since you asked:
> 
> A sequel to _Tosca_, in which Puccini's heroine survives her leap from the Castel Sant'Angelo (as music critic Alex Ross pointed out, there's actually a ledge near the top) and goes on to further adventures. She embarks on a quest, with trials based on the four Cardinal Virtues, leading her to the famous people and great cities of Europe in 1800.
> 
> ...


Thanks. Sounds fascinating.

You realize, of course, that at certain moments in the score Puccini turned _Parsifal_ into _Tosca._


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

amfortas said:


> Yes, in Chretien, when Perceval visits the court of the wounded Fisher King and sees the spear carried before him, he fails to ask its meaning, and thus misses a chance to bring healing to the fallen monarch. Later he's chastised for his folly:
> 
> _"Ah Perceval, unlucky youth!
> How could you fail to ask the truth?
> ...


In other words, "all they had to do was inform," and being foolish and arrogant, they ignored Parsifal instead and failed.

Seriously, why does the writer place the blame on Parsifal rather than the more experienced, more knowledgeable knights of the Grail? Why should a young dude be able to think of these things and come up with a wise question if the knights aren't able to think of the importance of informing visitors?? Just because Parsifal happens to be the "hero"?

Do kids at school have to ask questions in order to learn anything at all, or are they taught either way? I'm guessing that as a Medieval writer, this man had never heard of schools and the importance of education.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Chordalrock said:


> In other words, "all they had to do was inform," and being foolish and arrogant, they ignored Parsifal instead and failed.
> 
> Seriously, why does the writer place the blame on Parsifal rather than the more experienced, more knowledgeable knights of the Grail? Why should a young dude be able to think of these things and come up with a wise question if the knights aren't able to think of the importance of informing visitors?? Just because Parsifal happens to be the "hero"?
> 
> Do kids at school have to ask questions in order to learn anything at all, or are they taught either way? I'm guessing that as a Medieval writer, this man had never heard of schools and the importance of education.


LOL . . . all fair questions.

My guess would be that the whole thing was a test, to see if Perceval had the wisdom to ask the truly important, meaningful question (somewhat as the Wanderer does with Mime in the first act of _Siegfried_).

Of course, we get just a hint of this idea at the end of _Parsifal_'s first act, when Gurnemanz asks the boy, "Do you know what you saw?" Having just witnessed the wounded, agonized Amfortas presiding over the Grail ceremony, Parsifal is left speechless in response--even though the stab of pain in the music suggests he has been deeply affected. Gurnemanz, who had suspected Parsifal might be the long-awaited "pure fool" who is to bring redemption, now decides, based on this simple test, that the boy is indeed no more than a worthless fool, and dismisses him from the hall. Only a soft soprano voice from high above, reiterating the "pure fool" prophecy, points to the real truth.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

amfortas said:


> LOL . . . all fair questions.
> 
> My guess would be that the whole thing was a test, to see if Perceval had the wisdom to ask the truly important, meaningful question (somewhat as the Wanderer does with Mime in the first act of _Siegfried_).
> 
> Of course, we get just a hint of this idea at end of _Parsifal_'s first act, when Gurnemanz asks the boy, "Do you know what you saw?" Having just witnessed the wounded, agonized Amfortas presiding over the Grail ceremony, Parsifal is left speechless in response--even though the stab of pain in the music suggests he has been deeply affected. Gurnemanz, who had suspected Parsifal might be the long awaited "pure fool" who is to bring redemption, now decides, based on this simple test, that the boy is indeed no more than a worthless fool, and dismisses him from the hall. Only a soft soprano voice from high above, reiterating the "pure fool" prophecy, points to the real truth.


So not only Parsifal fails here but Gurnemanz and in a way the whole institution of the knights. It seems that Medieval writers were distracted by the idea of 'hero', they failed to see that it takes the failures of an entire society of humans, generations of them, to create and perpetuate dystopias.

Largely I believe it's a psychological flaw common in humans of all eras, the desire to let someone else carry the heavy burden of responsibility, the desire to not take anything very seriously, the desire to have other people take stuff seriously for you. What is, after all, Christianity if not the desire to let Jesus Christ take life seriously so that nobody else has to? What is, indeed, modern nihilism, other than the burning passion of mankind for not having to take life seriously? The character of Parsifal exists so that the knights don't have to bother being heroes themselves.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Chordalrock said:


> *So not only Parsifal fails here but Gurnemanz and in a way the whole institution of the knights. *It seems that Medieval writers were distracted by the idea of 'hero', they failed to see that it takes the failures of an entire society of humans, generations of them, to create and perpetuate dystopias.
> 
> Largely I believe it's a psychological flaw common in humans of all eras, the desire to let someone else carry the heavy burden of responsibility, the desire to not take anything very seriously, the desire to have other people take stuff seriously for you. What is, after all, Christianity if not the desire to let Jesus Christ take life seriously so that nobody else has to? What is, indeed, modern nihilism, other than the burning passion of mankind for not having to take life seriously? The character of Parsifal exists so that the knights don't have to bother being heroes themselves.


We have to take myth as myth, and not as if it were real life. Myth uses characters and actions symbolically, not literally, and our task is to understand what is being symbolized.

Wagner's myths, foretelling the insights of Jung, are powerfully symbolic of basic psychic processes. Events proceed as they must, and in their progression they symbolize the awakening of consciousness. No one really "failed" when Parsifal didn't understand what he was seeing. At Parsifal's stage of maturity, no explanation would have been meaningful. Parsifal gave no evidence of being the prophesied "reine Tor," Gurnemanz was not unreasonable (even if a little peevish) in sending him away, and Parsifal had to undergo further experiences in order to make the mental connections which would give meaning to his developing sense of empathy.

At the end of the Grail ceremony, Gurnemanz might be said to represent the rational faculty or ego which sees, but cannot fundamentally change, the psyche and allow it to grow. For that to happen, some new, unpredictable insight is needed, and Parsifal in his innocence represents this. The story is wonderfully true to human nature in showing the rational self, as it presently understands itself, failing to recognize the very thing that can help it achieve greater enlightenment and healing. Parsifal will eventually return transformed, and thus transform the perceptions of Gurnemanz and his moribund society of the Grail.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> We have to take myth as myth, and not as if it were real life. Myth uses characters and actions symbolically, not literally, and our task is to understand what is being symbolized.
> 
> Wagner's myths, foretelling the insights of Jung, are powerfully symbolic of basic psychic processes. Events proceed as they must, and in their progression they symbolize the awakening of consciousness. No one really "failed" because Parsifal didn't understand what he was seeing. At Parsifal's stage of maturity, no explanation would have been meaningful. Parsifal gave no evidence of being the prophesied "reine Tor," Gurnemanz was not unreasonable (even if a little peevish) in sending him away, and Parsifal had to undergo further experiences in order to make the mental connections which would give meaning to his developing sense of empathy.
> 
> At the end of the Grail ceremony, Gurnemanz might be said to represent the rational faculty or ego which sees, but cannot fundamentally change, the psyche and allow it to grow. For that to happen, some new, unpredictable insight is needed, and Parsifal in his innocence represents this. The story is wonderfully true to human nature in showing the rational self, as it presently understands itself, failing to recognize the very thing that can help it achieve greater enlightenment and healing. Parsifal will eventually return transformed, and thus transform the perceptions of Gurnemanz and his moribund society of the Grail.


I can understand and accept that, but what I was objecting to was the character of Parsifal being blamed in the Chretien. This made me want to critique Chretien's work and competence as a whole, inasmuch as I had some sort of impression of the work and the writer based mostly on this thread.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Chordalrock said:


> I can understand and accept that, but what I was objecting to was the character of Parsifal being blamed in the Chretien. This made me want to critique Chretien's work and competence as a whole, inasmuch as I had some sort of impression of the work and the writer based mostly on this thread.


Ah. I guess I can't say much about the Chretien version, except that in their medieval forms these stories can be quite busy and rambling compilations of elements deriving from various sources, often pagan myths Christianized in order to conform somewhat to Christian moral concepts. (The version Wagner drew from primarily, the _Parzival_ of Wolfram von Eschenbach, was even more Christianized than Chretien's, and Wagner subjected it to a drastic paring down and condensation, conflating some elements, inventing others, and even adding some overtly Christian symbols but using them in a subversive way that still gives rise to debates.)

I've read both Chretien and Wolfram (though not recently), and feel that, compared to Wagner's very modern art, theirs was rather simple-minded and fanciful, and so I don't read too much into it. But I do think that beneath the charming and colorful surface of these legends, some of the mythical archetypes that moved Wagner are very much alive. Perceval's failure to ask the question "What ails thee" is designed to present to us a picture of immaturity and moral unawareness quite equivalent to what Wagner presents, and the failure of other characters to help him out means very much what it means in Wagner.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

In the first act, Gurnemanz explains the story of the predicament of the knights of the holy grail to some young novices there . Clings , the evil sorcerer , had originally aspired to be a member of the holy brotherhood, but his inability to control his libido rendered him unworthy . 
So he castrated himself . Still rejected by the brotherhood, he turned to black magic and created a magic garden filled with seductive young women to lure the knights into being seduced . 
Kundry , a woman who had laughed at Christ on the cross , was cursed to live eternally , fleeing from one lif to another as a tormented ***** . At the time of the opening , she is known as Sundry and is being held captive by Klingsor as a tool to entrap the knights . most of the time she is hideous and dressed in rags, but she can transform herself into a beautiful seductive woman when Klingsor commands . 
Gurnemanz tells the young squires about the time when Sundry seduced Amfortas , leader of the knights and son of the aged knight Titurel . As Amfortas lay in Kundry's arms , Klingsor stabbed him in the side with the holy spear used to pierce the side of Christ . Amfortas is now disgraced , and he is tormented by a wound which never heals . 
Now the knights are hoping for the arrival of the "Pure fool ", Parsifal , who will eventually save the brotherhood, heal the wound and eventually become leader of the brotherhood .


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

It's essentially a parable version of an STD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_King#Fisher_King_Injury

A thigh or groin wound that would not heal, as punishment for sexual congress with a loathly lady that leaves the Fisher King injured and incapable of manly activities like hunting or fathering an heir. Your "willies" is the intended reaction.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Itullian said:


> It makes me have the willies for some reason.


Willie was Wagner's given first name. Dickie was his middle name. Not sure why he preferred to use that.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Willie was Wagner's given first name. Dickie was his middle name. Not sure why he preferred to use that.


His last name was actually Wanger, but he preferred to spell it Wagner.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bettina said:


> His last name was actually Wanger, but he preferred to spell it Wagner.


 ...........................


----------

