week 6: Perceval

As I perceive it, one of the most humourous moments of the romance is Perceval's fight with the sultan. Here, the complete incompetence of Perceval to deliver the final blow to his enemy turns the very serious fight in which the Land of Women is at stake into a mere farce. Perceval leaving the battleground in order to contemplate his wrong use of language is only a prelude to the comical masterpiece - that is that the confused sultan eventually shows Perceval how to kill him. I believe that this humour stems from the sense that this sequence of actions is just unthinkable, irrational and thus impossible. On the other hand, to comment on irony, it seemed to me that some parts of the story were simply mocking the culture of knights and their chivalry, as f. e. in: "Sir Perceval announced a banquet / to celebrate the birth, / and afterwards – what else? / – but a jousting!" I find the last line to be ironical in the sense that it depicts knight as stereotypical figures who can only joust all day long.

For me, the greatest feature of humour in the narrative lies within the way Perceval is portrayed, his entire character is based on an everlasting quest of wanting to be seen as a knight, while simultaneously failing to properly act like one. The chivalrous value of his conquests and battles is often overshadowed by his lack of manners and 'proper' conduct, which often leads to comical situations rather than dramatic ones. I think that it can be perfectly summarized by the Queen's perception of Perceval: "She was curious how he could be/ so accomplished in battle/ and yet so untutored/ in the finer arts of courtesy./ She had seen nothing so far/ but his roughness/ and marvelled a lot/ at his foolish behaviour".

I agree with Timotej that the English version does not provide much comment on Perceval's actions but basically just describes them, sometimes accompanying these descriptions with ironic questions ("How much more moderate could it be?" (462), "How could he do otherwise?" (738)). I think the most humorous scenes are when Perceval first meets King Arthur and his mare almost touches the king's face and when Perceval fights the sultan and then asks himself: "God, could this be a stees that I thought was a mare?" (1691-1692).

Some instances of humour that come to mind is of course Perceval's simple mindedness and naive personality which promotes misunderstandings (of his mother's advice for example). Another would be his ridiculous actions, such as entering Arthur's court on his mare and his mare touching Arthur's forehead.
I believe humor and irony is in a way used to humanize Perceval in this narrative. He is a hero that is not immune to mistakes but neither is he incapable of learning from them, challenging the old romance ideal of a chivalrous strong knight, contrasting the secular with the sacred. This in my opinion puts the Perceval narrative into an interesting position of linking the old romance tradition of Chretien and the coming anti-romance of Chaucer and the older romance of the continent and that of north of England which humanizes the romance tradition.

I see the difference between the two versions that Timotej pointed out the same; Chrétien provides us with more commentary (both on the inner and outer workings of thegiven context), while the English version reduces this aspect of the narrative. In this sense, the original version appears to be more humorous, as Chretiéns' additions almost caricature Perceval. His character is untidy, unsure, naive, motivated, and lastly full of expectations what it is like to be a knight. He misunderstands, misses the point (which is clearly demonstrated in his interpretation of his mother advice.) A huge part of the ridicule is, I believe, how unpretentious and raw he is, and how unpretentious behaviors come off as ridiculous in this world.

In my opinion, the most humorous feature is Perceval himself because he is utterly clueless about knights and knighthood and knight yet he is eager to be one - and the tension between cluelessness and eagerness is what creates most of the humorous situations. I would say that the French version stresses the humour more than the English version, especially at the beginning of the text. When Perceval meets the knights in the forest, Chretien puts emphasis on the fact that Perceval is a peasant but an enthusiastic and curious peasant. The knights are asking him a whether he has seen the other knights with girls but Perceval is caught in the moment and he starts asking them questions: „Whatever I ask him, point blank, he answers Sideways, and off the mark, Asking the names of things And how they're used." (9)

And later when Perceval defeats the Red Knights and gains his armour, Chretien shows that the armour is useless to Perceval because he doesn’t know how to put it on. Also when Yonet suggests he wears the fine fabrics, Perceval insists on keeping his old clothes: "You've got to be joking. You think I'll exchange the good Clothes my mother made me For the stuff this knight was wearing? Give up my good strong hempen Shirt for that flimsy thing He wore under his armour? Trade my coat that keeps out The rain for that one, which couldn't Stop a drop? Damn The man who'll trade good clothes For bad! He deserves to rot!" I think it’s quite humorous how Chretien keeps emphasising that Perceval needs more than fine armour and weapons.

Some have commented that the original seems more humorous to them than the English translation, but I got the opposite impression. Yes, the beginning of Chrétien's narrative was more witty and I enjoyed its theological and practical misunderstandings more than the blood-thirstiness of the English Perceval. However, having read through most of Chrétien's unfinished romance, it gradually seemed to take itself more seriously: this I found reflected especially in its portrayal of Perceval, who remains somewhat unusual and alien, but certainly shows some progress in his understanding of the world, his ignorance is now only partially, he can deal nobly with his enemies and seems quite "knowledgeable" when he deals with Blanchefleur, his ignorance is no longer the punchline (mainly because it has been partially removed by his training with the Squire), it is Sir Kay instead who is made fun of. The English Perceval, in contrast, reads almost like a farce, the fight with the Sultan that Štepán mentioned being one example, but also the whole thing with "the lady the muslim giant is idealizing and with whom he is in love with" turning out to be Perceval's mother. That was just rich.