|
The Grail According To Four Medieval Authors This paper will compare and contrast the physical appearance of the Grail, or “Holy Grail,” in Le Conte du Graal (“The Story of the Grail”), which is also known as Perceval, by Chretien de Troyes; the trilogy of Grail stories attributed to the Burgundian knight, Robert de Boron, entitled Joseph d’Arimathie (“Joseph of Arimathea”), Merlin and Perceval; Parzival by the Bavarian minnesinger, Wolfram von Eschenbach; and Sir Perceval of Galles, written much later and copied in manuscript by Robert Thornton in the latter half of the 14th century. Le Conte du Graal was published in the mid-1180s and Boron’s Trilogy appeared near the close of the 12 th century. It is not clear to what extent Boron was influenced by Chretien’s Conte du Graal, if at all, but there is enough textual evidence to suggest he at least knew of Chretien’s version. Wolfram’s Parzival appeared between 1200-1210, and, as with Boron vis-avis Chretien, it is not clear to what extent he was influenced by Chretien or Boron, or both. The author of Sir Percevall of Galles wrote his Perceval story in the mid-14 th century. Defining The Grail Before we begin, let us attempt to define the term “grail”: According to Kratz, “The Old French word, graaus, graal, whatever its true etymology, seems to have always designated some kind of a vessel.” (420). One of the more interesting etymological possibilities is that of “crater” in the Middle Latin, derived from the Greek krater, which, according to Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, means: “a jar or vase of classical antiquity having a large round body and a wide mouth and used for mixing wine and water.” This same dictionary defines the word “grail” as: “The cup or platter used according to medieval legend by Christ at the Last Supper and thereafter the object of knightly quests.” The Random House Webster’s College Dictionary slightly expands on this definition: “A cup or chalice that in medieval legend was associated with unusual powers and was much sought after by knights; identified with the cup used at the Last Supper and given to Joseph of Arimathea.” Psychologically, the Grail has meant
many things to many people, the search
for the Grail representing the quest
for individuation of the psyche, according
to 20 th century psychoanalyst Carl Jung.
(See Man and His Symbols, Carl
Jung, Anchor Book-Doubleday, 1964; Memories,
Dreams & Reflections, Carl Jung,
Vintage, 1989; The Grail has appeared in various forms throughout the ages, as stone, cup, magic cauldron, chalice, dish, platter and horn of plenty (Matthews 1-10). This variety of forms reflects a fusion of Celtic and Christian elements: The Grail According to Chretien In Chretien de Troyes’ Le Conte du Graal, both pagan and Christian elements seem to have dovetailed to create a unique vision. A t the hall of the Fisher King, Parsifal sees a procession featuring a “shining lance” that drips blood from its tip and two candelabras with “at least ten candles each.” He then witnesses “an elegantly attired young lady holding between her two hands a bowl.”
Although the appearance of the Grail in Chretien does not have an overtly religious character, it does seem at least pseudo-religious in the solemn, ritualistic procession and the seemingly miraculous illumination of the Grail. Later in the story, we learn that “the old king is maintained by a host which he obtains from the Grail and consumes every two weeks. Thus it would seem that Chretien views the Grail as a kind of ciborium…..one of the most precious symbols of Christianity” (Kratz 420). In summation then,
The Grail According to Robert de Boron Robert de Boron gave Chretien’s Grail story a more overtly Christian interpretation. In the first few pages of his Joseph d’Arimathie, we read of the Last Supper:
When Christ is handed over to Pilate, “the vessel in which He had made the sacrament was at Simon’s house, and one of the Jews took it and kept it until the next day.” (Boron 18) The cup is then given to Pilate, who tells Joseph of Arimathea, “I have a vessel of his, given me by one of the Jews who were present at his capture, and I’ve no wish to keep anything that belonged to him.” Pilate then gives the cup to Joseph, who “receives it with great joy.” (Boron 19) The Holy Grail was then used by Joseph of Arimathea to catch the blood flowing from Christ’s wounds, and he later hands it over to his brother-in-law, Bron (not to be confused with “Boron”, the author of this story), who brings it to England. Boron gave a new direction to the Grail stories with writings that would find their completion in the The Quest for the Holy Grail, from The Vulgate Cycle . By way of contrast with Chetien’s Grail, we read in Nigel Bryant’s introduction to Boron’s trilogy:
The Grail According To Wolfram Wolfram von Eschenbach ’s Grail is entirely different from both Boron’s and Chretien’s, appearing as an “incorruptible” stone. Eschenbach was a minnesinger in the court of Landgrave Hermann of Thuringia and wrote the story of Parzival somewhere between 1200-1210, which marks the first appearance of the Grail in German literature. (For more on Hermann, see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07265b.htm) Wolfram claims in this work to be unlearned, but this must be false modesty as he seems so familiar with the earlier Grail romances of Chretien and Boron, and his writing style is rich with character and psychological complexity. In fact, Wolfram’s Parzival has been described as the second greatest literary work of the Middle Ages, after Dante’s Divine Comedy. (Mustard/Passage, intro to Wolfram vii, xi) As Wolfram himself writes:
As in the other two Grail stories, Parzival is a foolish knight who leaves his mother, sorrowing at his loss, to go off in search of adventures. During his knight errantry, Parzival arrives at the Grail Kingdom of Munsalvaesche, which has become a Wasteland due to a sin against purity by the high priest, Anfortas. Parzival learns from the hermit, Trevrizent, that Templar knights “live from a stone whose essence is most pure.” This then is Eschenbach’s Grail, about which Trevrizent goes off on a series of rhapsodic flights:
This sounds very reminiscent of the "Philosopher's stone" , a concept popular in the medieval science of alchemy. Trevrizent continues:
This is much more orthodox, like something we might here from Boron. But then we hear a more heterodox finale:
In fact, this seems the most heterodox interpretation of the Grail, mixing mythology (in the first quote), Christian orthodoxy (in the second), and Christian heresy (in the third). Why Christian heresy? According to Father Paul Stretenovic of Our Lady Help of Christians Catholic parish in Northridge, CA, the Church of Wolfram’s time taught that it was the “good angels” and the “bad angels” who were at war, not “Lucifer and the Trinity”; and the idea that angels who did not take sides in the battle between Lucifer and the Trinity are “worthy, nobler angels” is in direct contradiction to the words quoted in Scripture: “I know thy works: that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot: But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.” The Grail According to Thornton’s Manuscipt The Robert Thornton manuscript of Sir Percevall of Galles was written sometime between 1350-1400, long after the Parsifal stories of Chretien, Boron and Wolfram. In this story, a “coupe” is described in lines 609-624, when the Red Knight (“Rede Knyghte”) enters Arthur’s Hall while he and his men are feasting:
This seems an unremarkable appearance of the “grail” compared to that of Chretien and Wolfram—as if the “coupe” is merely a prop to reveal the dastardly character of the Rede Knyghte as well as give Percevalle an excuse to go on his “aventures.” It certainly is not called a “grail” (worthy only of a small ‘g’ in this context); nor does this “grail” seem to have any great spiritual value; only material value, being “all of rede golde fine.” Whereas Boron has a wholly religious backdrop for his Grail; and whereas we can discern a pseudo-religious, even mystical, character in Chretien’s description of the Grail; and whereby we can find some of both in Wolfram; this English account seems wholly secularized. One might even surmise that this “coupe” is not “the grail” at all, but it would be hard to imagine a Perceval story without the ubiquitous relic. Conclusion After the Middle Ages (and Mallory’s Morte d’Arthur) the Grail stories essentially disappeared from the European cultural radar, only to be revived in the Romantic Age in the works of artists like Alfred Lord Tennyson, Sir Walter Scott and Richard Wagner. In this past century, the Grail was given new life as a Jungian symbol of the search for wholeness, and was featured in movies like Excalibur and (less auspiciously) Monty Python and the Holy Grail. While writing this paper, I began wondering if the presentation of the Grail in the accounts I have surveyed told us anything about the nation, or nation-to-be, in which it was written. Did Chretien’s view of the Grail as part of a solemn procession within a king’s castle with the Grail’s “brilliant illumination” prophecy the advent of a “Sun King” and the gloire of the French monarchy? Did Boron’s orthodox Christian view of the Grail reflect France’s religious orthodoxy (hand-in-hand with the ancien regime, represented by Chretien’s Grail)? Did Wolfram’s “heretical” view of the Grail indicate a gradual pulling away from religious orthodoxy that would result in a Martin Luther? Did the anonymous author of Sir Percevalle of Galles—with a more secularized “coupe”—reflect his country’s more pragmatic approach to religious matters, which might lead to a 16 th-century Oath of Supremacy to a King rather than Pope, and a Book of Common Prayer as opposed to the more ornate Roman Missal? These are weighty matters, indeed, which cannot be covered in a report of this size. BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary Sources The Complete Romances of Chretien de Troyes (David Staines trans.), Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1993. Merlinand the Grail, Robert de Boron (Nigel Bryant trans.), Cambridge, D.S. Brewer, 2001. Parzival, Wolfram Von Eschenebach (A.T. Hatto trans), London, Penguin Classics, 1980. Parzival , Wolfram Von Eschenebach (Helen M. Mustard and Charles E. Passage trans.), New York, Vintage Books, 1961. Sir Peceval of Galles and Ywain and Gawain (ed., Mary Flowers Braswell), Kalamazoo, Medieval Institute Publications, 1995. Secondary Sources The Elements of The Grail Tradition, John Matthews, Shaftsbury, Element Books, 1990. Wolfram von Eschenbach’s Parzival: An Attempt At a Total Evaluation, Kratz (no first name given), Switzerland, Francke Verlag Bern, 1973. A Dictionary of Symbols,Chevalier & Gheerbrant (Buchanan-Brown, trans.), New York, Penguin Books, 1969, 1982. WEBLIOGRAPHY 1) “A Grail Compendium” http://members.aol.com/SageWithin/grail/grbibliography.htmlwith A thorough bibliography for the more traditional elements of the Grail 2) “King Arthur: A Man for the Ages” http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4186/Arthur/htmlpages/kingarthur.html A very lively, interactive and graphically rich webpage for Arthurphiles, voted “Best of the Web” by the BBC, October, 2000 3) “The Mabinogion” http://www.webmesh.co.uk/Mabinogionhomepage.htm A very informative, well-laid-out webpage with a cornucopia of information on early Welsh poetry, including the all-important Mabinogion 4) “Wikipedia” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher%27s_stone Wikipedia, of course, has a wealth of links and information on any topic under the sun (and under the moon as well). 5) “Answers” www.answers.com A rival to Wikipedia for encyclopedic info and convenience of use 6) “Catholic Encyclopeda” www.newadvent.org The most thorough and informative Catholic encyclopedia on the Web. Teaches much about the Middle Ages. Timothy McAleer |