Quite so, but the chastity of the Grail Knights does appear to be based on a fear of female sexuality in particular, and the attitude to Kundry is one of open disdain that, IIRC (I don't have my score to hand) is based partly on her sex, although I recall Gurnemanz runs her down for having seen a bit of the world as well.  Klingsor believes that by castrating himself he becomes chaste; Kundry exposes the fallacy of this.  It's all a long way from any concept of chastity as having the body in the soul's keeping (as the old saying would have it).  It's the type of chastity that's the problem here.

I do wonder whether the Kundry in Act 2 is fascinated by the fact that there is much more too him than the usual woman-hating Grail Knight who is all too easily picked off by the Flower Maidens' gaudy charms.

(As a passing aside, it's perhaps ironic that Wagner was carried off by the heart-attack that followed an assignation with Carrie Pringle, one of the original Flower Maidens, and the subsequent row with Cosima).

From an opera which has some of Wagner's finest music, I ought to say at once, after my intentionally provocative opening remarks  But even the finest of works shouldn't be immune to intense investigation and rigorous analysis to see what makes them tick.  After all, there are no holy grails.  (oooops! )

My biggest difficulty with PARSIFAL is the libretto. Coming hard on the heels of THE RING, TRISTAN and MEISTERSINGER,  the obvious difference in PARSIFAL is that the plot-material is so sparse as to be hardly noticeable (and spread over more hours of music than the other operas, too).  Despite Rossini's oft-cited friendly put-down, rarely more than 20 minutes passes in any of the RING operas, or MEISTERSINGER without some attention-grabbing stage action that's mirrored with appropriate music.  Often this action is on such an epic scale (Wotan & Alberich descend through a fiery cleft... an entire squadron of avenging angels fly with the bodies of dead heroes to Valhalla...  Walther tries to sing a song but is marked-down by Beckmesser...  Siegfried slays the enormous dragon, Fafner... the Rhine overflows and engulfs the entire stage) that staging it credibly is a task of Valhalla-deserving heroism in itself.  But then in PARSIFAL... well, nothing "happens".  The plot is entirely one of philosophy, faith and internal reflection, and any "action" there is (Parsifal ultimately pulls-back from Kundry's kiss,  Klingsor chucks a spear at him) is very limited in scale and scope.  This may make for interesting music, as the entire thing is internalised and in fact about abjuring from the temporal world into a brotherhood of contemplation and faith...   but it makes poor theatre,  as several others here have noted above, phrasing this in perhaps different ways.

For myself, I no longer have any idea what "left" and "right" are supposed to mean,  since I see politicians on the "left" actively conspiring with those on the "right" and doing all the things that "lefties" are supposed to oppose.   In that context,  I am not sure that contemporary politics  (which I equate only with the selfish furtherance of national interests, and cannot ally with "left/right" political philosophies) can be applied to Wagner's output in a way that helps to shed light on the operas...  instead, it only aids in obfuscating Wagner's intentions whilst laying rival claim to his emotionally "triggering" music as a recuiting-tool.  It may have amused "der Meister" to watch both Left & Right squabble for possesion of his highly "useful" music

In addition to the notorious usage made of Wagner's music by the German right-wing in the middle years of the C20th, it's certainly true that the "Left" has put up some effective counter-claims for his work (quite possibly by way of wishing to negate and neuter those made by the Nazis).  It's more than possible (using thorough textual analysis, rather than just gut-feeling) to find an anti-discriminatory message in THE FLYING DUTCHMAN...  this could be extended (by reaching outside the work's strict libretto to the sources which inspired it) to making it a work which exposes the mendacity of anti-semites, although there is no overt reference within the work's text to Vanderdecken being a "wandering jew", or even that the "Dutchman" is actually Vanderdecken.  Rather than wanting to be so very specific, Wagner seems - IMHO - to have wanted to extend this idea of "the rejection experienced by refugees at the hands of all communities", instead of making it a purely antisemitic matter.  I know there are several here who remember seeing Nick Hytner's ground-breaking production of RIENZI at ENO - painting Rienzi as a Nazi-style dictator,  complete with a "ballet" of Calisthenic Exercises of the Leni Riefenstahl kind, and that notorious coup-de-theatre ending.  Whether this is a "leftie" production, or simply reclaiming Wagner for "all of us" (one likes to hope that all of us, "left" or "right", would be opposed to discrimination or tyranny) is a matter of point-of-view, possibly?

I'm left cold by PARSIFAL, not because of the mysogyny in it (which I believe arises as a "theme" rather accidentally... because of the absence of a stronger "better" theme in the action of the libretto),  but because it does not make for good theatre.  There was a tradition in Germany (which still continues at Bayreuth itself) to treat the piece not as opera at all,  but as some kind of "staged oratorio", a religious experience at which applause would be inappropriate.  Aside from all consideration of whether or not it's a "work of religious intent" or even a religious service in itself,  I believe that this view does have some merit...   it is not,  by comparison with Wagner's other work, a piece of dramatic theatre (by which I mean no sleight to the piece...  it simply adheres to a different genre).

I have to say that for me the "hanging around and nothing happens" opera in the Wagner canon is Tristan und Isolde.  I suppose I ought to duck behind our virtual sofa now.

It is almost certainly because while I find religious ritual deeply compelling, sexual relations between men and women are out of my direct experience.  But there it is.  I have to say I have never bothered listening to Tristan for years, so I may change my mind now.  But I am not tempted.  From what I recall, I would rather have Gurnemanz or even Amfortas (with carers) as a dinner party guest than King Marke.  What a whinger.

I thought you'd said earlier SK that 'Like many of the greatest masterpieces, you can take from it whatever you want to take from it.'... 

Anyway, one topic that often comes up is Wagner's attempt to syncretise Buddhist and Christian philosophy through the idea of reincarnation (Kundry obviously, but Parsifal as a Christ-like figure). However, although Wagner was obviously deeply interested in Buddhism, Pythagoras' pagan idea of metempsychosis seems just as pertinent. After all, it was a notion familiar to most educated thinkers in the 19th c. Like many great works of art, Parsifal's faultlines occur when it tries to square what are essentially incompatible philosophical systems, although that doesn't mean that the attempt isn't fascinating...

Hmmm.  Not sure whether I'm baring rather too much of my soul by admitting this, but I often wonder whether my own tendency towards celibacy is partly a result of the fact that I discovered the likes of Tristan und Isolde before I had ever had any kind of sexual relationship, and since then have found the idea of being in a "normal" partnership utterly bland and uninspiring...

I find religious ritual deeply compelling, too - but still find Parsifal the most difficult of Wagner's operas.

It's the spear that pierces Christ's side when the soldiers are trying to find out if he's dead or not ('Is he dead?' 'He looks dead' 'Why not poke him with a stick?') isn't it? There's a cult of St. Longinus I think... Ooh! Isn't Wikipedia occasionally incredibly useful!

Well Longinus himself isn't exactly mainstream, and nowadays most flavours of Christianity seem to shy away from reflecting heavily on the wounds of Christ. I didn't realise that the lance of Longinus was an established part of the Grail legend until I read that.

Thanks, hh and ollie.  I realised the Spear (with big S) was the spear that pierced the side of Christ.  I had forgotten about the statue in San Pietro in Vaticano.  But the spear is certainly not an object of much devotion in popular Christianity, catholic or not.  (Heart, name, wounds,crown of thorns, maybe.)

But my question, is what did Wagner think it meant?  Amfortas is healed by the thing that caused his wound, in the same way that in psychotherapy you are healed when you recognise the cause of your distress?

I do think Amfortas goes on a bit.  I feel far more sorry for Kundry in her dilemma, but she is never given a big solo to express her distress.  He is given three.