User talk:Makuabob

Hi, all.

I am an electronics technician by vocation and an eclectic browser most of the time.

I fancy that I understand a few things (i.e., delusional nerd-type); that's why I mess around in the odd topic here in Wikipedia.

Most recently, I've touched up the page on Wagner's Parsifal. Later, I had second thoughts on using "upbraided" to describe the manner in which Gurnemanz initially interacted with Parsifal. 'Berate' is NOT something Gurnemanz would do. His disappointment in Parsifal after the Grail ritual was his least positive reaction in the entire opera. Only Klingsor would berate. Guilt and shame were the primary tools in Klingsor's bag-o'-tricks. Gurnemanz was as near opposite Klingsor's type as characters got in this work of Wagner's.

I got slightly rushed in finishing my self-correction to my first change to Parsifal and failed to add a comment as to why the change was made. The previous paragraph is that explanation.

Hi! Welcome to Parsifal. You might want to have look at [1] for further ways to improve the article. I notice that you changed references in the synopsis for "the Grail" to "the Holy Grail". When I wrote this synopsis I tried to stick very closely to what Wagner had actually put in the libretto. I'm wondering if he anywhere explicitly refers to the Holy Grail? It is very clearly implied, I know, but I think it's important to limit these things to what is actually stated - "Parsifal" suffers too much from other people's interpretations of what Wagner meant, and then it ecomes accepted that this is really what Wagner meant: when this may not be the case. While the Spear is referred to as Holy, I can't see that this is ever the case for the Grail. --Dogbertd (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Dogbertd!

I'm not sure, of course, but there is, so far as I can discover, only one vessel (cup/chalice) in all of human culture which has ever been associated with collecting the blood of a redeemer,... on a cross,... after said redeemer's side was pierced,... with a spear. Additionally, in the 1st Act, Gurnemanz specifically refers to it as Weihgefäss which, while not directly given in my Langenscheit's, follows this same dictionary's translation of Weihwasser to "holy water." Since this authorative dictionary never refers to gefäss as a "grail" or "chalice," should all of those references be changed, also?

In looking through my copy of G. Schirmer's opera score of Parsifal, with (somewhat suspect) english translation by Stewart Robb, Herr Wagner does not use the word "Christian" but, of course, the parallels cannot be avoided, despite my desire to avoid them. It is soooo obviously Christian in nature that to not mention it makes its own statement.

I have the LONDON recording of Parsifal which I purchased, in the 1980s, for the princely sum of US$60 (plus tax) at a retail music store in Texas. Its translation of the libretto, by Lionel Salter, more correctly relates the key 1st Act phrase des reinen Glaubens Reich as "realm of the true faith" as opposed to the Schirmer's "realm of Christian faith."

I do not, personally, see Parsifal as a religious work. At times, it seems it could be a parody since the characters are so sharply defined as to approach being caricatures, though I suspect Wagner intended them as archtypes.

Makuabob (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't see Parsifal as a religious work, either. For me, it's Wagner's vision of compassion as the highest form of human morality (which he took from Schopenhauer, of course). I raise the point about the "holiness" of he Grail, because Wagner was probably very familiar with Chretien de Troye's version of Percival, where the chalice is a simple Graal - a plate - holding a magical wafer which sustains life. This then has nothing to do with the Grail of Joseph of Arimathea. Have a look at the article on Grail and see what you think. Wagner retains this life-giving property of his Grail - it keeps Titurel alive until he is refused it by Amfortas. Which makes me wonder if he deliberately avoided calling it Holy.--Dogbertd (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read through most of the Wiki article on "Holy Grail" and looked at both disambiguations. It remains an inescapable conclusion that Wagner intended the image of the Holy Grail to be invoked.

In what is the main aria for Gurnemanz in the 1st Act (and, possibly, the entire work), which begins with "Titurel, der fromme Held,.. four different words are used to refer to the grail and this item is plainly described in the german lyrics as the vessel from which the redeemer drank at the last supper AND the same vessel that caught the blood from the spear-wound at the cross. In one line alone, Gurnemanz sings, "daraus er trank beim letzen Liebesmahle, das Weihgefäss, die heilig edle Schale, darein am Kreuz sein göttlich' Blut auch floss,...

It challenges the imagination that a plate is the item used for drinking at a meal, AND also capturing blood flowing from a wound; especially if the latter action is done for a figure upon a cross. The cup or chalice is the symbol needed to express the containment of an immortal fluid which, by its very presence, can sustain life (i.e., hope of eternal life), as it had for Titurel. Once the sight of "hope" was lost, even Titurel starb - ein Mensch wie alle.

The grail is referred to many times by Wagner as 'holy' using adjectives and prefixes like "heilig, Weih, and edle and, going once again to the Langenscheit's dictionary (New Edition, 1973), the word Gral has only one usage. The exact line reads,

"Gral [gra:l] m (-s): der Heilge ~ the Holy Grail"

The dictionary notations are: m = masculine, (-s) = plural form, and the ~ is where the object word is inserted. That is the entire entry; in german, Gral means "the Holy Grail".

Since this is a public forum, I will refrain from casting pearls... The opera becomes rather coherent and transparent once the archtypic actions associated with the main characters are recognized. In my searches around the web, it is easily seen that a great many folk assign deep, mystical significance to this opera. Like the woodcut inside the cover of Donovan's Cosmic Wheels LP album, if anyone wishes to peek behind the veil, just wander out to the edge.

However, concerning the Wikipedia article on Parsifal, to imply that the grail in this opera is something other than the Holy Grail seems less than accurate. Wagner knew what he was doing, and took decades to finish it. He constantly made references that these items and places were not real or worldly: that the path to the grail that was not earthly - kein Weg fürht zu Inh durch das Land and relics handed down from the angels. The use of Monsalvat in the article is misleading in that the domain of the grail is not in the world, it is in the mind. Wagner had earthly models for his scenes but the scenes were not depicting earthly places.

OK, one pearl,... As Parsifal assumes the role of King of the Grail, and the lance and grail are once again united, Kundry dies. "When logic and proportion have fallen smokey dead,..." I doubt the need to finish that verse...

Makuabob (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting that the Grail in Parsifal is something other than the Holy Grail, I'm suggesting that it is something more than the Holy Grail. Wagner fused several sources to create Parsifal, and it is not merely some Christian allegory or Arthurian legend, but his own synthesis of these things. As you say, he know what he was doing, and took decades to do it. Which makes it odd that he never once refers to the Grail as the Holy Grail, when he clearly does so for the Spear. Never mind. I'll let it rest. --Dogbertd (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cowries

Thanks for the welcome!

Instead of deleting the cowry speices list entirely perhaps we could make corrections and I will add a tag (expert or possibly fact) to warn the reader. So far I have been lucky enough not to get into an edit war, probably because I stick to the science articles. Ooh a hummingbird just flew by.

I think it's important to create links to all new terms, regardless of them being red for several reasons. It lets the user know not to bother searching for the term, it serves as a reminder that it should be created, or if it will never be created that it should use a simpler term or define it in the current article. Red links are also useful for analysis by scripts (most wanted pages, etc).

Best regards, Craig Pemberton (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]