# The Grail **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 17, 2008, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grail/463922 "2008-09-17T01:04:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2008, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grail/463922/21 "2008-09-18T16:10:00Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > How did the Grail enter the Arthurian myths? I seem to recall the quest for the grail as being part of the stories-wasn’t the “perfect knight” (Sir Galahad ) all wrapped up with this quest? > Are these stories original, or were they additions from the 19th century? > It is hard to see what the big deal with the grail was-after all, it was just a cup that jesus used-Paul mentions nothing about it. As Cecil explains in the original column, the Grail first appears in the last of the Arthurian poems of Chrétien de Troyes, who was also the inventor of Sir Lancelot, the Queen’s lover. In Chrétien’s unfinished poem, _Perceval, le Conte du Graal_ (_ca._ 1181-1190), it is simply described as _“un graal”_, a relatively obscure Old French word for dish. There appear to be some old Celtic legends behind it all, but Chrétien essentially made a new story of it, just as Wagner’s “Ring” operas are heavily based on ancient myths, the _Völsunga saga_, and the _Niebelungenlied_, but ultimately go off in a completely different direction. The story was wildly popular, and several other poets wrote continuations and attempted endings of it, none of them quite definitive, because no one quite knew where it was supposed to go. So it continued to bubble, and, as continuations became more and more impractical, poets started instead to rewrite the story from the beginning. In Chrétien’s version, the main hero is Percival, who became Parzifal or Parsifal in German. Wolfgang von Eschenbach’s poem became the main version in the German-speaking world, and, eventually, the inspiration for another Wagner opera. But in France, where most of the Arthurian literature developed, the main line of development passed through Robert de Boron. It was his version that nailed down the idea that the Grail was the cup of the Last Supper. (It was also he who nailed down the story of Merlin, and permanently attached him to Arthur’s court.) The final stage came in a long prose version of the entire story of Arthur. Like most medieval works, it doesn’t have a title; unlike most, it’s never receive a _de-facto_ title, either. It is variously referred to as “The Lancelot-Grail”, “The Prose Lancelot”, “The Vulgate Cycle”, or “The Pseudo-Map Cycle” (because it claims to have been written by Walter Map, which it certainly was not). It established two vital parts of the story. First, although Chrétien had introduced the figure of Lancelot as Guinevere’s lover, and a mighty knight, the general tendency until then was that whoever was the hero of the current story was King Arthur’s greatest knight. The Vulgate Cycle established Lancelot permanently in that role. Second, Percival got demoted. Instead of being the hero of the Grail adventure, he became one of three. Sir Bors, the ordinary man, Sir Percival, the innocent, and a brand-new character, Sir Galahad, the mystic. And then, in a brilliant stroke, the two main plots were tied together by making Sir Galahad the bastard son of Sir Lancelot, begotten by him on a young woman who had been enchanted to look like the Queen. The Vulgate Cycle is long (about a million and half words), and was only translated into English for the first time a few years ago, in five oversize volumes from Garland Press (which means you’ll mostly find it in university libraries). But it was very popular in French. Pretty much every version of the Arthur story written since has been based on either it, or on the ancient Welsh and Breton legends. This includes Sir Thomas Mallory’s _Le Morte Darthur_, which is essentially a “Reader’s Digest” version of the Vulgate, although it also adds the story of Trystram and Isolde. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2008, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grail/463922/22 "2008-09-18T17:02:00Z")
… ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2008, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grail/463922/23 "2008-09-18T17:03:27Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > How did the Grail enter the Arthurian myths? I seem to recall the quest for the grail as being part of the stories-wasn’t the “perfect knight” (Sir Galahad ) all wrapped up with this quest? > Are these stories original, or were they additions from the 19th century? > It is hard to see what the big deal with the grail was-after all, it was just a cup that jesus used-Paul mentions nothing about it. From the outset, the Arthurian romances reflected a very popular memes – chivalry and courtly love – in 12th and 13th century Europe, particularly France and England. Key to both chivalry and courtly love were inspiration, devotion, discipline, duty and sacrifice. One might be devoted to one’s liege lord, or to a lady, or to a code of behaviour, or to God. It was these issues in which the society of the time was interested, not the Grail _per se_, for these issues were central to the social and economic structure of society. As **John W. Kennedy** has already explained, the grail itself is just a MacGuffin – in this case it simply stands as a quest object. Arthurian romances became, and have remained through the centuries, tremendously popular, not because of the Grail, but because of the issues they dealt with. Chrétien de Troyes wrote a series of Arthurian romances that dealt with these issues, of which _Perceval, le Conte du Graal_ was the last book in the series. The Grail was simply a plot device used to move the plot along. A sword in a stone, a grail, a holy hand grenade, a bunny – they are all just plot devices that have no deep significance in and of themselves. Have a look at the Court of Eleanor of Aquitaine to get a feel for chivalry and courtly love, and then go back and compare the Arthurian romances against Norse legends. You will find a tremendous difference in themes, although both genres superficially have heroes going about smacking things. I think that if you dig into the literature, you will see why Arthurian romance was a big deal. The genre, not the grail, is what is of sigficance. ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2008, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grail/463922/24 "2008-09-18T18:58:41Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Have a look at the Court of Eleanor of Aquitaine to get a feel for chivalry and courtly love, and then go back and compare the Arthurian romances against Norse legends. You will find a tremendous difference in themes, although both genres superficially have heroes going about smacking things. I think that if you dig into the literature, you will see why Arthurian romance was a big deal. The genre, not the grail, is what is of sigficance. And, by the way, it’s _very_ important. The tales of King Arthur introduced a new idea in western Europe that haunts us to this day – the idea that romantic love is important. For thousands of years, the world pretty much assumed that love was a kind of adolescent madness that men were lucky enough to grow out of, and women (yet another sign of their inferiority) usually did not. Sure, sex was loads of fun, but all that emotional stuff? “I’m glad I’m not young anymore,” was every man’s song. Suddenly, about nine hundred years ago, something cracked. Suddenly, the astonishing notion arose that being in love made a man more manly. Women, instead of things to be held in contempt, were all at once to be worshiped, and men didn’t have to hide their eyes any more when the mushy stuff started. Cowboy machismo and modern feminism have both eaten away at the courtly-love ideal, but it is still with us. ---
**Author:** ![paperbackwriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/53a042/32.png) [@paperbackwriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/paperbackwriter)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2008, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grail/463922/25 "2008-09-18T19:01:08Z")
> [@maatorc](#): > > Correct: The grail legend is but another example of transmission of the myth of occult anatomy which underlies _every_ known tradition and ideal and practice of human perfectibility. The problem you’re running into here, **maatorc** , is that we rarely in this forum take flat assertions like this at face value. We want to know why you’ve reached this conclusion, and what evidence brought you to that opinion. For example, I know a bit about many different occult traditions and mythologies, and I’ve never heard about any universal myth of occult anatomy. I know of no interpretation of _The Last Supper_ that suggests the scene was intended by Leonardo whatever-his-correct-last-name-was to represent the human brain. Just saying these things is interesting, but we would normally like to see some source or support for them. As **Dr Cathode** said, such an explanation of your thesis might be better served by a dedicated thread. I know I would be interested in seeing it. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2008, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grail/463922/26 "2008-09-18T19:03:15Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Why? > Why don’t we call Vincent van Gogh just ‘Vincent’? That would be like calling _steak au poivre a la creme_ hamburger. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2008, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grail/463922/27 "2008-09-18T19:29:05Z")
> [@SeanArenas](#): > > When I go to [google.com](http://google.com) and type in just the word **leonardo** , the first two hits are on Leonardo da Vinci ([wikipedia.org](http://wikipedia.org) and [Home | Leonardo Da Vinci - The Genius](http://mos.org/leonardo)). It’s not until the 4th hit that Leonardo DiCaprio shows up. > > Now, personally, I don’t like when people refer to him by “da Vinci” since, as you point out, it’s merely the place he’s from (town called Vinci in Florence). But, his father’s name was also da Vinci, presumably because he was also from there. His father’s full name (according to wikipedia) is Messer Piero Fruosino di Antonio da Vinci. So perhaps Piero’s father was Antonio and Antonio was also from Vinci. Wouldn’t “DiCaprio” presumably refer to the place where his ancestors came from? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2008, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grail/463922/28 "2008-09-18T19:32:17Z")
> [@](#): > > Not really comparable. Different era, by which time surnames were a well-established concept - she [Teresa] had a name and surname anyway. Yeah, but if you mention Agnes Bojaxhiu, nobody has a clue who you’re talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2008, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grail/463922/29 "2008-09-18T20:05:36Z")
> [@SeanArenas](#): > > …But, his father’s name was also da Vinci, presumably because he was also from there. His father’s full name (according to wikipedia) is Messer Piero Fruosino di Antonio da Vinci. So perhaps Piero’s father was Antonio and Antonio was also from Vinci. So it’s… like a surname? This is how many surnames came about, after all. > [@](#): > > So, technically, someone who says “da Vinci” to refer to a man could mean either Leonardo, Piero, or Antonio … or anyone else born in that town. Same can happen if I say “Smith” - I might mean Adam Smith, Will Smith, Agent Smith… > [@](#): > > Just like anyone who says “Leonardo” could mean da Vinci, DiCaprio, or even Leonardo’s Tuxedo ([http://www.leonardos.com/](http://www.leonardos.com/)) , but it looks like they’re in Puerto Rico. So that would make Leonardo de Boricua. > > But usually when someone says either “Leonardo” or “da Vinci” they are referring to the Renaissance Man. That, I suppose is what surprises me. If anything, the pedants should be demanding that we call him by his full name. ---
**Author:** ![rayh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@rayh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rayh)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2008, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grail/463922/30 "2008-09-18T21:17:17Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > That, I suppose is what surprises me. If anything, the pedants should be demanding that we call him by his full name. Leonardo di Ser Piero. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2008, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grail/463922/31 "2008-09-18T21:19:55Z")
Why is Leonardo son of Piero any more correct than Leonardo of Vinci? ---
**Author:** ![rayh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@rayh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rayh)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2008, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grail/463922/32 "2008-09-18T21:26:26Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > Why is Leonardo son of Piero any more correct than Leonardo of Vinci? Actually according to Wiki - > [@](#): > > Leonardo had no surname in the modern sense, “da Vinci” simply meaning “of Vinci”: his full birth name was “Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci”, meaning “Leonardo, son of (Mes)ser Piero from Vinci.” > > His birth is recorded in the diary of his paternal grandfather Ser Antonio, as cited by della Chiesa. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2008, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grail/463922/33 "2008-09-18T21:28:56Z")
That doesn’t answer my question. If he had no surname, why is son of Piero any more correct than from Vinci? ---
**Author:** ![maatorc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@maatorc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/maatorc)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2008, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grail/463922/34 "2008-09-19T00:39:35Z")
> [@paperbackwriter](#): > > The problem you’re running into here, **maatorc** , is that we rarely in this forum take flat assertions like this at face value. We want to know why you’ve reached this conclusion, and what evidence brought you to that opinion. > For example, I know a bit about many different occult traditions and mythologies, and I’ve never heard about any universal myth of occult anatomy. I know of no interpretation of _The Last Supper_ that suggests the scene was intended by Leonardo whatever-his-correct-last-name-was to represent the human brain. Just saying these things is interesting, but we would normally like to see some source or support for them. > As **Dr Cathode** said, such an explanation of your thesis might be better served by a dedicated thread. I know I would be interested in seeing it. It is a vast subject. I am saying the myth exists, not that it is true or false. As you will know, a difficulty with sources is the attitude of the reader to the author-publisher-organization: “I think this author - etc - therefore this cannot be true” typifying many reactions. A useful introductory text is “The Occult Anatomy Of Man” by Manly Palmer Hall, ISBN o-89314-338-3. ---
**Author:** ![Gotterfunken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/58956e/32.png) [@Gotterfunken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gotterfunken)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2008, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grail/463922/35 "2008-09-19T01:09:53Z")
About the Leonardo naming thing: in Renaissance Italy, very few people had surnames. It was convention to refer to someone by his Christian name, even in the case of those people who HAD surnames–thus, most people (and scholars today) talk about “Dante” and “Michelangelo,” even though those two were some of the rare artists to have surnames (Alighieri and Buonarroti, respectively). With Leonardo, the “da Vinci” part, or the “di Ser Piero” part, is just a further clarification. He didn’t have a surname, and so his proper name was just “Leonardo.” To call him just “da Vinci” would not be in keeping with Renaissance convention. Most Renaissance scholars abide by that convention, even though society in general no longer does. I know that a lot of surnames today originated as simple descriptors–my own family name means something like “Son of” (or, more accurately, “Clan of”) “Owen.” But the “di Vinci” part of Leonardo’s name simply wasn’t part of his proper name in the 15th-16th century. It’s really not that big of a deal, and it is probably overly pedantic to insist on such conventions on a message board. It just annoyed me with the _Da Vinci Code_ to see characters, who are supposed to be scholars of art or “symbology,” demonstrating ignorance of such conventions. I realize there are worse problems with realism in that book, but that’s one of my biggest peeves. My apologies for contributing to a hijack. ---
**Author:** ![Gotterfunken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/58956e/32.png) [@Gotterfunken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gotterfunken)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2008, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grail/463922/36 "2008-09-19T01:15:09Z")
> [@maatorc](#): > > The entire picture is the human brain, the Apostles are the twelve brain convolutions, ‘Jesus’ is the Pineal, and the sexually ambiguous ‘John’ is the Pituitary, as is ‘Mary Magdalene’. Are you suggesting that all paintings of the Last Supper represent the human brain, since all such images contain 12 figures arranged around the central figure of Christ? Because that’s how the Last Supper is almost always depicted by Renaissance artists–it’s not just Leonardo. The representation of John as sexually ambiguous is something else that Leonardo borrowed from art historical conventions. There is NO Mary Magdelene in Leonardo’s painting. It’s true that Leonardo introduced a number of stylistic innovations in his painting (sfumato, idealized perspective, etc.), but the overall composition and the subject matter preceded him by centuries. ---
**Author:** ![maatorc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@maatorc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/maatorc)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2008, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grail/463922/37 "2008-09-19T06:01:10Z")
> [@götterfunken](#): > > 1…are you suggesting that all paintings of the last supper represent the human brain, since all such images contain 12 figures arranged around the central figure of christ? Because that’s how the last supper is almost always depicted by renaissance artists–it’s not just leonardo. > 2…There is no mary magdelene in leonardo’s painting… 1…No, as some of the artists may not have been consciously depicting the myth. 2…True, it was mentioned as another example of the Pituitary, as is ‘Sir Lancelot’ another example of the Pineal. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2008, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grail/463922/38 "2008-09-19T18:11:30Z")
As far as we know, the pineal gland wasn’t even discovered until Galen in the 2nd century, and he didn’t know what it was used for (he thought it was a valve that regulated thoughts), so how could the Osiris myth and the New Testament (as you mentioned in the OP) refer to it? ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2008, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grail/463922/39 "2008-09-19T20:03:19Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > As far as we know, the pineal gland wasn’t even discovered until Galen in the 2nd century, and he didn’t know what it was used for (he thought it was a valve that regulated thoughts), so how could the Osiris myth and the New Testament (as you mentioned in the OP) refer to it? Space aliens, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2008, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grail/463922/40 "2008-09-19T20:18:59Z")
> [@maatorc](#): > > [Quote=götterfunken] > > 1…are you suggesting that all paintings of the last supper represent the human brain, since all such images contain 12 figures arranged around the central figure of christ? Because that’s how the last supper is almost always depicted by renaissance artists–it’s not just leonardo. 1…No, as some of the artists may not have been consciously depicting the myth. [/quote] So how can we tell the difference? Do you have an inside track to their minds or did they leave detailed descriptions? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grail/463922.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grail/463922.md?page=3)