Wolfram von Tolkienbach

[Anguirel]

While ranting about the inadequacies of the ROTK film, it dawned on me that The Lord of the Rings is a book told in strands.

We have the Frodo strand, and the Aragorn strand. What interested me is that this links the book closely to the version of the Grail Quest told by Wolfram von Eschenbach.

Wolfram took hold of the version of the Grail Quest half-finished by Chretien de Troyes. Chretien's poem is unfinished, but it has Percival and Gawain setting out in a manner that clearly indicates Percival will be a serious, spiritual hero while Gawain will be a bluff damsel-chasing knight errant. Wolfram nicked this structure and developed it splendidly. I would suggest that Tolkien then nicked it from Wolfram (and Wagner), but put it to subtler use.

So if Tolkien is "Wagner for kiddies", my friends, it is not Das Ring Der Nieberlungen or however you spell it, but Parzival.

The double-stranded structure gives the advantage of having a temporal hero and a spiritual hero, which is basically the only way of handling a post-Christian Grail Quest interestingly. The Church's licensed Grail stories are insufferable, with the prig Galahad riding around achieving miracles and then, mercifully, expiring. The Percival/Galahad figure has to be balanced by a Gawain/Lancelot figure, who does well but is too human and sinful to reach sublime glory.

Frodo is Percival. Aragorn is Gawain. Simple enough, apparently. Frodo achieves the big, meaningful quest, Aragorn rides around in nice armour to win a beautiful woman's heart. This is why when we were little we preferred the Aragorn-sub-plot to the Frodo-plot-proper (go on, admit it). I still do, actually...

...but that doesn't mean I'm wholly superficial, because Aragorn actually does some pretty important and symbolic stuff too. Percival/Galahad's mission is ultimately one of healing. They have to ask the question "What ailest thou?" that will heal their uncle the Maimed King and restore the Grail Kingdom. Aragorn, too, gains entry to a Kingdom through the act of healing...

...but Aragorn is still Gawain, because in the older myths Gawain was not a simple skirtchaser but the Grail hero in his own right. And he, too, was famous for his healing hand. (I haven't read the version to which I here refer, but I think it can be partly found in a German poem called Diu Krone.)

As for Frodo - is he good enough to be Percival? Some would say he failed by choosing to claim the ring. But Percival too is enormously imperfect, in Welsh and German stories. He fails to ask the right question at the right time and everyone suffers because of it. He's an innocent, even an idiot, in a threatening world. Like Frodo, you could argue, he learns the lesson of pity (by asking the question about the wounded man, second time round) and so is redeemed.

Right. There you have it. Aragorn, Gawain, Frodo, Percival. Discuss.

[Bêthberry]

If your hypothesis is correct, then our elven prince was doomed to a name beginning with L, Legolas being the undeveloped Lancelot strand. Clearly, the fangirls were on to something.

[Anguirel]

I reckon Imrahil's Lancelot. Think about it. Late addition, supreme fighter, stylish, keen on swans and water and stuff, probably French, obviously about to run off with Arwen...

[littlemanpoet]

For now all I'll say is that your comparisons are apt. I would wager that Tolkien new von Eschenbach's tale very well, and understood how, and why, LotR was like it and unlike.

For my part, I've always been drawn more to Frodo's quest ... until he gets to Mordor proper, after which it gets hard to bear.

[davem]

Many, many years since I read Parzival. However I don't see Aragorn as a 'Gawain' figure. Of course, as you say, Gawain was a much more noble figure in his origin than the one we see in Parzival (or Malory - who makes him into an ignoble figure in order to play up Lancelot's heroics). Aragorn is much closer to Arthur - both have 'magic' swords (& both are given 'magical' sheaths for said swords btw).

I wouldn't go too far down the 'Parzival = LotR' line though - I accept it would have been an influence on Tolkien's thinking (the graal as a stone which fell from heaven is perhaps not too far from a Silmaril), but I think it was only one among many.

[Lalwendë]

It's useful from my point of view to look for some Arthurian links as I can see some there myself and have done since I first read any Tolkien - how many British kids went through early childhood without absorbing some of the Arthurian myths? It might even be inevitable for a British reader to draw these parallels at some point.

But I also think that these kinds of parallels are pretty central to that something 'indefinable' about Tolkien's work, that sense that it's somehow 'real', and they have a lot to do with his aim to dedicate a mythology for England (note, not to create a new one!). The more I look, the more I see the deep layers of British archaeology, history, and of folklore and mythology (as fragmented as these are), all wrapped up in living language which has genuine meaning. Does that make sense? It's something I'm mentally working out and have been for some time. Basically, all the layers of our known folklore and ancient history, even the layers of our landscape are to be found woven into Tolkien's stories, including Arthur, Robin Hood, the Celtic, Roman, Saxon and Norse gods, the mysteries of the ancients....

So to Arthur. Even at the surface level there's so much to see that links Aragorn with Arthur. Boys brought up in foster homes, who inherit/earn magical swords, the 'fairy wife' they both earn, the need to prove their kingship, the quasi-holy drive. The biggest comparison is a big one though. Both of these kings are intended, destined to be kings who reunite fragmented kingdoms. This is even borne out in historic knowledge of who Arthur may have been as he is linked to both the kingdoms of the South West and to the kingdoms of the North, and Aragorn too is a link between North and South. they are long-hoped for Kings, ideal Kings, genuinely mythical Kings.

And this is without even considering the Gandalf-Merlin possibilities or who Galadriel may be (Lady of the lake or Morgan le Fay?). Or other linguistic connections such as Avalon/Avallone. And there's more.

The point is that none of these characters 'equal' characters from real myths and folklore, but they resonate with those older tales and contribute to this layered re-interpretation of Britain.

[mhagain]

I think it's easy to draw parallels after the fact, but the trap of reading too much into it is always there. It may have been the case that Tolkien's unconscious was at work here, but he's gone on record many times as refuting any such parallels, and if he was confronted with this theory, however plausible it may be (and it certainly looks to me to be), it's difficult to see him doing otherwise.