Everything I know about King Arthur I learned from watching
the movie Excalibur (1981).
One thing I never understood is why King Arthur wanted the holy grail?
There seems to be multiple answers.
If anyone can clue me in about this mythology, that would be wonderful! :->
Why did King Arthur want to find the Holy Grail?
.
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everything I know about King Arthur I learned from watching
the movie Excalibur (1981).One thing I never understood is why King Arthur wanted the holy grail?
There seems to be multiple answers.If anyone can clue me in about this mythology, that would be wonderful! :->
Why did King Arthur want to find the Holy Grail?
.
Well, there are different reasons given by different authors. The Queste du Graal, the basis of Malory's version, is an outgrowth of the Perceval legend as set forth by Chretien de Troyes and his imitators. Originally (in that version), the Graal is a serving dish that serves as a symbolic portion of a mystical feast which serves to keep the Wounded King alive. The Wounded King and the feast are allegories of the Christian Eucharist and Last Supper. The continuations of Chretien's poem add an aspect of vengeance as well, as Perceval hunts for his father's murderer and the wounder of his uncle (the Wounded King).
However, it is probable that Perceval (Peredur) is derived from a semi or pre-Christian source and that the Wounded King (Brons) is an amalgam of Bran, the Raven God of Death with the historical Peredur's uncle Urien - whose emblem was a Raven - (and who is also the husband of Morgan Le Fay). Urien's wound could be said to be a symbol of the internal treachery that defeated the Men of the North - the Pre-Welsh who lived in what is now Northern England. The Graal is a vengeance tale, then, like in the Welsh version Peredur ab Efrawc and the continuations to Chretien (which often show a stronger link to Celtic traditions), meant to be filled with the decapitated head of the traitor.The involvement of Arthur is kind of an accident. Many Celtic heroes (including versions of Cuchulain and Finn mac Cumhail in the Welsh versions) ended up being gathered up into the Arthurian court for the convenience of storytellers. Prior to the Queste, the rest of the knights are peripheral to the Grail, but in the Queste, angels appear, along with a new Grail hero - Galahad - who command the Round Table knights to participate en masse. The wounded king - while not Arthur, like in the film - is an ancestor/relative of Arthur's, and the mystical wound is a curse upon the whole kingdom - not just Perceval's homeland - which is the reason for its problems - Saxons, magic, dragons, etc. So the Grail quest is both a religious pilgrimage of sorts but also a way to save the realm. In reality, the later Post-Vulgate actually reconfigures the Grail Quest as the reason for Arthur's kingdom's fall - as all the good knights are away adventuring instead of governing or opposing the rise of Mordred and his evil kin. As it turns out, the Crusades ended up rather badly between the writing of these two works. And the Post-Vulgate became a criticism of the notion of religious quests and vows that took good rulers out of their kingdoms.
So, the answer is, Arthur undertook it as a religious obligation and because he thought it would heal his realm from its state of enchantment (not a good thing in the medieval mind).
Or, you could go with the reason in the poetry of Taliessin: plunder!
The two main reason I can remember are:
1) The Knights searched for it to cure Arthur/England of a sickness caused by Morgana LaFey's curse/Gwenevere and Lancelot’s betrayal.
2) Arthur wanted it as a symbol of his divine right to rule and end the rebellion headed by Mordred.
Two words: Sacred MacGuffin
So, was it important to possess Excalibur in order to find the Holy Grail?
Or, are the Holy Grain and Excalibur not related?
.
Or, are the Holy Grain and Excalibur not related?
Holy grain could only be harvested with a holy sword.
The Arthurian legend, like the Robin Hood story, has multiple sources and ties together various elements. There is no one, "right" answer.
Though if I remember correctly, Excalibur and the Grail are not specifically tied together. Excalibur represents Arthur's kingship and ties into the 'sword in the stone' myth.
I think Excalibur is originally with Perceval, and later stories make it Arthur's sword.
|
Contributor
|
The Arthurian legend, like the Robin Hood story, has multiple sources and ties together various elements. There is no one, "right" answer.
Though if I remember correctly, Excalibur and the Grail are not specifically tied together. Excalibur represents Arthur's kingship and ties into the 'sword in the stone' myth.
I think Excalibur is originally with Perceval, and later stories make it Arthur's sword.
Excalibur is Malory's version of Caliburne, which is derived from the Welsh Caledfwlch - "hard lightning" - and closely resembles the sword or spear borne by Fergus mac Roich in the Ulster Cycle - Caladbolg. It's a symbol of Bolgios, the Celtic god of thunder and lightning and via Indo-European analogues is probably also a symbol of kingship and virility.
The Grail might be related to the Cauldron of Cerridwen, which is a symbol of birth and creation, but was said also to be means of raising the dead. As a cauldron is a womb, and a sword, well... But it seems that they never interact much in the actual legends.
The Wounded King was injured by a spear - the Dolorous Spear - which is linked in later works with the Lance of Longinus - but is perhaps an analogue of Caladbolg in a pre-Christian stratum.
If you want the real reason....the knights were constantly fighting among themselves and stirring up trouble. This got them out of Arthur's hair so he could run the kingdom.
;)
He didn't have much of a choice, really. In most versions I've read, when Galahad joins the round table an image of the Grail appears over the table, usually accompanied by a phantasmagoric procession, an angelic choir or some other portent. Then the knights en masse decide that searching for the Holy Grail would be the greatest quest ever and all go questing after it. God just railroaded the plot like that.
It has nothing at all to do ith Excalibur.
|
Contributor
|
If you want the real reason....the knights were constantly fighting among themselves and stirring up trouble. This got them out of Arthur's hair so he could run the kingdom.
;)
I know you're joking, but the opposite - realistically I think - is depicted as happening.
All the good knights go and adventure for years looking for the thing and the bad ones swear to find it and spend their time hunting down lone good knights, ransacking the kingdom, and conspiring with the Saxons. King Mark even attacks Camelot. Though things look up a bit after the end of the Quest, the absence or death of so many knights in the following years means the kingdom is easy prey to the intrigues of Morgan, Mordred, and their Saxon allies, leading directly to Camlann.That it's divinely inspired is pretty screwy. As a means to bring an end to the Round Table it's pretty effective, and in a darker version of the story, I could see it being a magical trick by Morgan and her sisters.
So, was it important to possess Excalibur in order to find the Holy Grail?
Or, are the Holy Grain and Excalibur not related?
Unrelated. And FYI, the scabbard is much more valuable than Excalibur because it stops blood loss when Arthur gets injured.
As to your original question, Jeff has the right idea; at least so far as my memory of Le Mort d'Arthur serves. Arthur actually begs his knights not to go chasing after the Grail, because he knows their absence will invite trouble.
And surprise, surprise, it does. Those meat-heads never listen!
Those meat-heads never listen!
Not mythology anymore, but tell that to (Henry I?) and Thomas Beckett... in which case said meat-heads heard too much!
Because it was lost?
But if it represents god, then how could it be lost?
.
|
Contributor
|
So, was it important to possess Excalibur in order to find the Holy Grail?
Or, are the Holy Grain and Excalibur not related?
.
Arthur himself did not search for the Holy Grail. His knights went on quest to do so. The perquisite to succeed in securing the Grail was the wisdom and purity of Galahad. Although Lancelot was at least good enough to be permitted a glimpse of it. Arthur may have tried to dissuade the bulk of his Knights from doing so because in his heart of hearts he knew that only Galahd would succeed. Most of them never returned, falling to some peril or Le Fay trap along the way.
Much of King Arthur's court, and the magic was pre-destined for Galahad, such as the Siege Perilous, the reserved spot on the Round Table that would kill anyone but the Knight meant to sit on it.
Excalibur's main role was that it was the rallying symbol of the King's leadership, having taken over that role from Caliburn (the original Sword in the Stone), when the latter sword was sundered. The thing that kept Arthur alive from battle to battle was not Excalibur, but the sheath it was kept in which kept any wound from being mortal. Said sheath was eventually stolen by Morgan Le Fay, so he did not have it on him, when he faced Mordred in his last battle.
Actually, Arthur - at least in the original prose works - did go on the quest (and took an oath to find it), but had to abandon it pretty early. In the Spoils of Annwfn (by Taliessin), he led the expedition to sack the Underworld and seize the Cauldron. In most works, Arthur is among the more middle of the road knights in terms of virtue (he has several bastards) and thus his quest is doomed from the start.
Caliburn and Excalibur are identical. The name of the Sword in the Stone is unknown (it might have been Clarence or Sequence). Even in the middle ages, however, the two were confused, with some texts claiming he obtained Excalibur from the Lake and some from the Stone. Thus the equation of the two in the film is probably justifiable.
In most works, Arthur is among the more middle of the road knights in terms of virtue (he has several bastards) and thus his quest is doomed from the start.
I particularly like the part in Le Mort where Arthur finds out that his son will one day kill him, so he has all the newborn boys in England murdered in an attempt to head the prophecy off. :/
|
Contributor
|
In most works, Arthur is among the more middle of the road knights in terms of virtue (he has several bastards) and thus his quest is doomed from the start.I particularly like the part in Le Mort where Arthur finds out that his son will one day kill him, so he has all the newborn boys in England murdered in an attempt to head the prophecy off. :/
That was originally in the Post-Vulgate, which is essentially the GRR Martin of the middle ages. In the Post-Vulgate, Arthur's acts of incest, child-murder, and even rape, are all described. The Grail Quest becomes a nightmare of evil knights ambushing the pure, Arthur transparently favors his vicious Orkney kinsmen, and Mordred's acts of treachery are foreshadowed and set as destiny (via the manner of his birth) rather than free will. Malory clearly read and adapted this work - which had strong parallels with his era, the Wars of the Roses - because of its realism, which was one of Malory's interests. Generally his additions to the story were to add gory detail.
The movie "Excalibur (1981)" was on TV last night. I watched it, and it
made a lot more sense this time around.
.
I'm wondering when a remake will come out.
Especially if they're watery tarts.
Return to the womb.
Especially if they're watery tarts.
Or moistened bint's.
Thing is, Zoot lit the grail-shaped beacon. Wicked, evil Zoot! For this, she shall be spanked.
And after the spankings comes the oral sex!
Anyway, I can't believe I missed this thread the first time. Is anyone else floored by Mr. Erwin? He had me at "Post-Vulgate!"
I recently read T.H. White's The Once and Future King, which I found to be amazing and was hoping to read Malory by the end of the summer. Anyone have any alternative King Arhur-themed book, either old school or new, they'd strongly suggest?
--
Thanks in advance!
You know, Excalibur was cool enough that it should get a trailer link.
You're on your own with the biker one, though.
Excalibur rocks. Especially "sex in full plate" scene. Talk about being in a hurry.
|
Contributor
|
And after the spankings comes the oral sex!
Anyway, I can't believe I missed this thread the first time. Is anyone else floored by Mr. Erwin? He had me at "Post-Vulgate!"
I recently read T.H. White's The Once and Future King, which I found to be amazing and was hoping to read Malory by the end of the summer. Anyone have any alternative King Arhur-themed book, either old school or new, they'd strongly suggest?
--Thanks in advance!
I actually mostly enjoyed J. Robert King's Mad Merlin and sequels. I don't have my lit collection here so I can't recall other recent gems. I did like the first Mists of Avalon book. The Winchester manuscript of Morte is better than the Caxton, at least in terms of story coherence.
Honestly, it's hard for me to enjoy Arthurian fantasy outside the originals, if only because I've seen so much of it before; the grand ideas (even the ones where the villains are heroes) have all really appeared somewhere in the Arthurian literature. I tend to read new translations or editions of medieval stuff. More frustrating to me are the "historical" versions, since the choices of how to integrate the mythology into history are generally ones I dislike, such as those arising from popular geographical ideas, ignorance of Welsh, or simple misunderstandings of major characters, like Tristram (one of my favorites, but usually depicted negatively since Tennyson). A lot of this is understandably, hard work.
Malory's version of things is good literature, but he did make mistakes, and he did have biases towards the characters and the story. His Arthur is far more noble than the realistic portrayal of the Post-Vulgate, as is his Lancelot. In some cases this is because he is showing the traditional characterization from the English poems - where Gawain is definitely a hero, as is his uncle. His female characters, unfortunately, get simplified, and the motivations of many villains are not detailed. Ultimately, Chretien, the Pearl poet, and Wolfram are all better at sketching personality and telling a complex story.
|
I do find it amusing how so many modern Britons admire him considering that ethnically, being a Celt, he would be their dire enemy.
Actually, he would be a Roman collaborator, but what the heck.
Ethnicity does not matter. The Land does not belong to the People. The People belong to the Land.
And if they kill us all and take our homes for their own, within a few generations, our soul will still be living on in their children's dreams.
Another great retelling of the Arthur legends is the Pendragon Trilogy by Steven Lawhead. It places Arthur and his knights in a squarely Celtic Britain. A large focus of the books is actually Merlin. The series starts with Taliesin, who in this telling is Merlin's father and Merlin's mother, who is a refugee from Atlantis.
|
Contributor
|
Actually, he would be a Roman collaborator, but what the heck.If Arthur existed, he lived long after the Roman withdrawal in 410. There weren't any Romans in Britain to collaborate with. He would have been fighting against incursions of Irish, Atacotti, Saxons and Picts as a native Briton.
Lowland Britons were Romanized.
There, is, of course, the possibility that Arthur was an Irish mercenary. Certainly the areas most associated with him - Cornwall, Wales, southern Scotland - were all seeing a great deal of settlement from Ireland. The name Arthur was also known at an early date in those regions, as well as in Ireland.The Welsh tradition named Arthur's mother Ygerne (Eigyr) as the daughter of Amlawdd, the son of Ffrwdwr - i.e., Amleth (Hamlet), the son of Frodo, a Jutish or Danish hero. If this is the case, than Arthur was half-Germanic himself.
I think he wanted the Holy Grail so's he could win teh interwebz.
|
Contributor
|
The Romanization of lowland Britons and the garrison occupation of upland Britons was very extensive during the occupation. But by the time of Badon (c. 500 AD), the influence of the Romans was three generations in the past.
Arthur did not march at the head of a Roman army. He was a light cavalryman (stirrupless), wielding a lance and wearing chain mail, with the heavy British longsword by his side. The gladius and lorica were long forgotten.
But this thread is not about the historical Arthur, anyway. It's about the Holy Grail, which was a late medieval invention (14th-15th century).
The Holy Grail as presently understood first appears in works dating from c.1180 to c.1270.