Comparing Chrétien's Perceval And Sir Gawain '

Chrétien’s Perceval stands apart from other contes in its early and highly significant reference to the Grail, but also due to the inclusion of dual plots. The seemingly forced intrusion of the Gauvain-plot into the eponymous hero’s quest narrative leads modern criticism to deem Chrétien’s work overly episodic and ultimately haphazard. However, this potential problem should be seen as minor and transitory when considering the value of both plots to this highly significant text and to romance as a genre. I would argue fundamentally that a Perceval without Gauvain would lose its complexity and insight into the chivalric ideal, a view critics such as Matilda Tomaryn Bruckner support . Arthur’s nephew provides a benchmark against which to measure

up Perceval and his remarkable journey from naivety to knightly prowess. Gauvain can be seen as not antithesis but counterpoint to Perceval, embodying all he aspires to and must overcome his misgivings to become.

The fundamental difference apparent from the early episodes is contained in the two knights’ very principles and nature of their chivalry.

Gauvain appears the perfect picture of a knight in his adventures in Perceval, thus adding a traditional element of chivalry a reader may miss in the naïve and flawed hero of Perceval. Chrétien can be seen to craft his writing to demonstrate the fundamental difference in status and reverence between the two. Gauvain is consistently addressed and referred to as ‘my Lord Gawain’ in the text, whether he appears in Perceval’s narrative or his own. This courtesy of address shows a respect Chrétien does not bestow upon Perceval, whose name we only learn a significant way through the conte. It is common in romance tales for an audience to be ignorant of a characters name until they themselves reveal them, thus the consistent inclusion of not only Gauvain’s name but also formal address marks him out as a figure of significance. Gauvain’s name also links to his personal chivalry in his own tale when he states ‘Sir, I am called Gawain; I have never hidden my name anywhere it was asked, but I’ve never given it unless I was first asked for it’ . This courteous language epitomizes the chivalric code embedded into Gawain’s psyche that the lesser Perceval does not inherently possess. The issue of naming is perhaps linked to the knight’s status and public identity. Whilst Perceval grew up in obscurity, as Heather Arden and Katherine Laurence put it, ‘an

isolated semi-orphaned youth, with inherent nobility and natural powers’ , Gauvain has grown up in the Arthurian court, thus he is immediately more publicly revered and used in chivalric practice. This perhaps calls into question the issue of nature versus nurture in knighthood- is Gauvain more chivalrous as he has been taught to be so more thoroughly and coherently?
Perceval has been called a ‘clumsy sketch next to a consummate model’ , and I feel this in an accurate analogy to depict the two knights ideas and practice of chivalry. This can be seen in their early treatment of maidens, which is central to knightly behavior. Perceval famously misinterprets his mother’s advice to ‘serve ladies and maidens and you will be honored everywhere’ by raping the maiden in the tent, whilst Gauvain does not need to learn how to treat a maiden in distress; it is second nature. This can be seen in his encounter with the knight’s sister. It is written that ‘my lord Gawain sought her love and implored her, saying he would be her knight for all his life.’ This reflects almost perfectly Perceval’s intentions for her son’s behavior; ‘…if you ask any for her love, be careful not to annoy her by doing anything to displease her’ . It can be argued that Gauvain is already representative of the essential chivalric ideal knights should possess, whilst Perceval’s early misgivings and social anonymity fail him initially. This may be due to Perceval’s inexperience, with Gauvain’s prowess providing dramatic counterpoint to the young knights naivety and innocence.

However, the view that Perceval and Gauvain are opposites can be deemed superficial.

Jean Frappier states ‘Chrétien presented Gawain as a noble and elegant model which Perceval must ever strive to match.’ Indeed, I would argue he is on the path to becoming less of a counterpoint to Gauvain after the Good Friday episode, and perhaps had the romance been completed by Chrétien, the two knights would become less polarised. In examining Perceval and Gauvain’s first meeting the young knights language is adoring and reverent, saying ‘My lord… I have been very eager for the two of us to become acquainted, if this is pleasing to you’ and later ‘I am most honoured to now be your friend’ . Chrétien’s narrative language also reflects this as after the two embrace, ‘they began to unlace their helmets’ and ‘they returned rejoicing to the camp’ . Although subtle, the unity in Chrétien’s language shows Perceval’s aspirations to be like Gauvain or even Gauvain-eque. Perceval’s later actions further support this interpretation. Although after five years Perceval is said to ‘in spite of everything never fail to pursue the deeds of chivalry’ , he is missing the concept of praising God that is also central to the chivalric ideal and is not yet complete or comparable to Gauvain. However in the Good Friday episode he learns the true meaning of penitence, fulfilling his chivalric destiny and becomes perhaps a reflection of Gauvain. Marianne Wynn has interestingly suggested that ‘the narrative

which had kept hero and counterpart in positions for constant comparison demanded a solution of the problem as soon as one of them was settled in his proper province’ . Once Perceval becomes truly chivalrous, it could be said that this is when the solution is provided and the narrative is resolved. Critics and contributors alike suggest that there was even more scope for Perceval to achieve Gauvain’s knightly heights if the text had been finished.
There has been much critical debate over whether Chrétien would have returned to Perceval’s story had he ended his work, and I feel this is suggested by the text. Chrétien in one of his intrusions states ‘this tale no longer speaks of Perceval at this point; you will have heard a great deal about my lord Gawain before I speak of Perceval again’ . This future tense suggests expectation for expansion on the Perceval plot. Wauchier de Denain and Maniessier pick up on this. The latter provides a more complete ending, with Perceval ascending the throne after the death of the Fisher King, then living in peace and dying a hermit . Meanwhile the second continuation leaves room for further development, which was perhaps Chrétien’s intent. Perceval returns to Grail castle and returns the sword of Trebuchet, with a tiny fracture that implies all is not complete in Perceval’s journey . Wolfram rewrote the Perceval and Gauvain story in Parzival to further exaggerate the connections by exteriorising them in combining the narratives and placing Parzival in Gawan’s stories . In combining and overlapping the two stories, Wynn suggests Wolfram changed ‘the very nature of his model through manifold changes and additions’. Thus perhaps Chreétien’s decision to keep the stories separate means we should treat them in isolation, two grand tales only connected by a common context.