Lévi-Strauss on Parsifal
n his essay on Parsifal, the anthropologist Claude Lévi- Strauss
considered the relationship between Wagner's text and some of his medieval sources. He considered the question
which is a central element of these texts to be necessary because of a break in communication between two worlds: respectively, the supernatural, represented by the
Grail castle and the terrestrial, represented by King Arthur's court.
A spell has disrupted communication between these
two worlds, which are distinct - although for the Celtic mind, it is possible to pass from one to the other. Since that break in
communication, King Arthur's court ... has been on the move constantly, waiting for news. In fact, King Arthur never holds court until someone has announced an
event to him. Thus, this terrestrial court is in quest of answers to questions that are perpetually posed by its anxious agitation. In symmetrical fashion, the
court of the Grail, whose immobility is symbolized by the paralysis of the king's lower limbs, offers, likewise perpetually, an answer to
questions that no one asks it.
In this sense, we can say that there exists
a model, which may be universal, of Percevalian myths. It is the reverse of another, equally universal model - that of the
Oedipal myths¹, whose problematical structure is symmetrical though inverted. For the Oedipal myths pose the problem
of a communication that is at first exceptionally effective (the solving of the riddle), but then leads to excess in the form of incest - the sexual union of
people who ought to be distant from one another - and of plague, which ravages Thebes by accelerating and disrupting the great natural cycles. On the other
hand, the Percevalian myths deal with communication interrupted in three ways: the answer offered to an unanswered question (which
is the opposite of a riddle); the chastity required of one or more heroes (contrary to incestuous behaviour); and the
wasteland - that is, the halting of the natural cycles that ensure the fertility of plants, animals and human beings.
As we know, Wagner rejected the motif of
the unasked question and replaced it with a motif that somewhat reverses it while performing the same function. Communication is
assured or re-established not by an intellectual operation but by an emotional identification. Parsifal does not
understand the riddle of the Grail and remains unable to solve it until he relives the catastrophe
at its source...
In Wagner, indeed, there is no King Arthur's
court; and hence the issue is not the resurrection of communication between the earthly world - represented by this court - and the beyond. The Wagnerian drama
unfolds entirely between the kingdoms of the Grail and of Klingsor: two worlds, of which one was, and will
again be, endowed with all virtues; while the other is vile and must be destroyed. There is, hence, no question of restoring or even establishing any mediation
between them. By the annihilation of the one and the restoration of the other, the latter alone must endure and establish itself as a world of mediation...
t was obvious to Lévi-Strauss that the domain of the Grail
and the domain of Klingsor were opposites (and opposites are, according to Lévi-Strauss, important structural elements of myths). In
the former, there is accelerated communication, excess, tropical vegetation, mocking laughter, an Oedipal relationship (Kundry is both
Jocasta and Sphinx) and a woman who poses a riddle for Parsifal. In the latter, there is silence, sterility, decay and an answer is
offered to an unasked question.
Thus, the problem, in mythological terms, would
be to establish an equilibrium between the two opposite worlds. To do so, one should probably, like Parsifal, go into and come out
of the one world and be excluded from and re-enter the other world. Above all, however (and this is Wagner's contribution to universal mythology), one must know
and not know. In other words, one must know what one does not know,
Durch Mitleid wissend ("knowing through compassion") - not through an act of
communication but through a surge of pity, which provides mythical thinking with a way out of the dilemma in which its long
unrecognised intellectualism has risked imprisoning it.
Although Lévi-Strauss does not mention it, the story of young Telephus
belongs to the class of Oedipal myths. In one version of the myth (that which is portrayed on the Pergamon Altar), Telephus
Delphic Oracle, which sends him to the region of Mysia in search of his own origins. After heroic deeds, Telephus
almost marries his