Every educated person, from amateur to
scholar, agrees that the grail myth is still unsolved. In fact, many are of
the opinion that it will never be solved, or that it is better to keep it a
mystery. However, there are many religious cults, secret societies and fraternal orders that
claim inside information about the grail, which is a major obstacle for
those of us who want to remain free of indoctrination. Why leave this
exciting subject in the hands of those self-serving "guardians of the
grail"? For example, your gatekeeper visited the "inner sanctum" of Scientology
(Hemet) and saw a mock-up of the "sword in the stone", which reveals that
even they dabble in grail matters. One of many good reasons to
"clear the air" and go public! But because we are individuals who share a freedom of
choice, we need to consider our talents and aptitudes before we enter this
complex maze of riddles. If you are strong in science and math, it
would be a good idea to start with "Kepler", and if you are more into arts
and literature "Chrétien" is a great entry level. Both paths cross
many times, until they fuse together, and you won't miss anything! You'll
need an analytical mind either way, and must always remain critical
of the information that is offered. Be careful, because there are many
challenges and teasers that could lead you astray!
The main reason why the grail mystery has never been solved is that our first
informants, the medieval poets
Chrétien, Robert, and Wolfram offer
mysterious clues in their works, which continue to challenge the leading medievalists.
A few attempts were made to solve them, but your gatekeeper thinks that none
support the
internal evidence. In fact, some obvious riddles are not even recognized, as
you will see below. Another problem is the fact that grail romance is a
large body of work, which is based on the three poets. Chretien's Conte
du Graal has been continued by several other poets who misunderstood or
distorted the original concept. Robert developed a huge following in France
and England, and Wolfram in Germany, which also changed their original
concepts. Until scholars make a comprehensive study of these works, which
may take many decades, and eliminate the continuations and adaptations that
were created under "holy orders" as disinformation, we are well-advised to
limit our study to the three original works.
We must also keep in mind that most modern "interpreters" of grail lore are either imaginative amateurs or elderly
scholars who spend their time in libraries, at their desks, or in the academic
captivity of their peers. Although some are challenged by students and
colleagues, they are bound by the academic practice that each new "finding" must be
built upon the established consensus. That's why the inhabitants of our "ivory towers"
have little in common with the medieval poets. The best
of them were the celebrated superstars
of their time and more famous than Shakespeare, the Beatles and Jonny Depp
combined. Their works were recited by other poets, and the transcripts and copies survived eight
centuries -- which validates their importance.
It was also an age of great ignorance, which made those
traveling minstrels the prime source for entertainment, information, culture and
wisdom. What they said was taken seriously, discussed publicly, thought about
deeply, and memorized word for word. We
overlook that the people of the Middle Ages had a different
mindset. They could remember and quote a text of twenty minutes or longer after
hearing it only once. Probably because they neither had newspapers nor
books to clog their mind, not to speak of television,
radio and the internet. The vast majority could not even read and write,
which means they had to memorize, and information was obtained through personal experience and word of
mouth. An exception was the elite, mostly aristocrats and
clerics, who relied on their own information networks. For the average
person even the Bible was off-limits, and one had to trust what was
preached from the pulpit. The only other source of information were the
traveling craftsmen, salesmen, and poets. Of these, only the latter were often free of agendas. They had to sell themselves, and their
success
depended on the content and style of their presentation. Quite a dilemma,
nevertheless, for many who could not separate fact from fiction. Let's
also keep in mind that "poet" is a very deceiving description of their
craft.
They recited, and often sang, very long and complex stories and romances, which
were usually presented in rhyme to make them more entertaining.
In those
days the traveling poets and entourage knocked at every better castle's
gate for food, lodging and pay. Only very few became stars and were
invited to the courts of counts and kings. Some became contract players
and took up residence, as still practiced in the theater and the
entertainment industry. Our first provider of riddles was such a man: The
French poet
Chrétien de Troyes. He was the undisputed superstar of his
era and resided at the court of Marie, countess of
Champagne, a daughter
of the famous Eleanor of
Aquitaine
and the King of France. One chagrin
for Marie is that
bubbly Champagne
wasn't
invented yet, and the other most certainly the poet's untimely death. What's sad
for us is that Marie's castle in Troyes was razed during the French revolution
-- not
a stone remains. Your gatekeeper was there in 2007 and could not believe
his eyes! In fact, most girls at the official Tourist Office at Troyes have
never heard of Marie de Champagne, nor of Chrétien de Troyes. All they know is
a street by his name -- c'est la vie...
1. Chrétien de Troyes
About a dozen different versions of Perceval
or Contes du Graal
survived the
times. It was his last work and it ends suddenly, before a decisive battle,
because of the author's sudden death. However, this does not exclude the
possibility that a continuation existed that was eliminated. Be careful when you loan out or buy
this work of
four volumes, because only the first part is by
Chrétien! Many of the surviving manuscripts
start with a
prologue that allegedly has so many flaws, errors and omissions that some initiates, like A.E.
Waite, assumed it was "by another hand". However, it is
established today that the prologue is indeed by the poet and that the
mistakes were supposedly made by the copyists. Its greatest alleged flaw, the excessive
praise of a Flemish count, has led most scholars to conclude that the ageing
poet had lowered himself to flatter a new patron in exchange for room and
board.
It should
be said that we will try to disprove this consensus, because a simple
reversal of the prologue's meaning allows us to explain each of these alleged
"mistakes" as made on purpose. For example, the rage on American
television was in recent years (2000-2008) a cooking show hosted by a certain Emeril.
His popularity is not due to his culinary talents, they are negligible, but to
his entertaining style. He is fun to watch because he looks and acts like a
Chicago gangster. When asked in an interview how he invented the
expression bham that made him famous, he admitted that his studio
audience would occasionally lose interest or fall asleep, and that the sudden outburst
would get their immediate attention.
If we apply
this idea to
Chrétien, something a scholar would not think of, we can imagine
how the poets repeated some "errors" to keep audience alert. It was
probably also a ploy to provoke a discussion of controversial issues. In fact,
we shall see that the French poet brought this style to the highest art form by
creating the first interactive poem in history -- over eight centuries ago!
Consequently, we have to
consider that the prologue was never understood correctly. If we don't
mistake
Chrétien for a poetic dreamer, but give him
the credit he deserves, that he was a brilliant master of his craft, all other
controversies and ambiguities find a good explanation as well. We shall see
that we are well-advised to always consider the two opposing points of view during his
era, the orthodox and the
heretic, if we want to solve his riddles:
a) The LOVE Riddle
Chrétien seems to make the most blatant mistake in line 49. He
contributes a famous quote from the Gospel of St. John to the apostle Paul --
and to make sure this does not go unnoticed, he claims that he has read it there
himself. We can imagine how violent some listeners (and hecklers) would
have reacted! We might even ask ourselves why none of the copyists caught the "error", if it was one? What makes it even more
dramatic is that the disputed Biblical passage defines the Cathar
"heresy" more clearly than any other! The quote is from the
First Epistle of John, 4-16,17:
God is love, and who
lives in love lives in God, and God in him. Our love is brought to perfection
in this...
When you compare this passage with
Chrétien's words you may want to
consider the role of
St. Paul
in the history of Christianity. Perhaps with Karen Armstrong's
help, who personally showed your gatekeeper the light, over tea and too
many cigarettes, when he was trapped
in one of those dark dungeons of the mind! He was confused by the position of a Gnostic sect
called the Paulicians, allegedly because they had constantly the name of
the apostle "on their lips". Could it be that Karen
overlooked that they were
persecuted because of another saint by that name? Was it Paulus Sergius or Paul
of Samosata?
b) The COUNT Riddle
Then there is
Chrétien's excessive flattery
of a rather
sinister historical figure: Philip of
Alsace, count of
Flanders. We shall
see that this has been noted by many scholars as inconsistent with the poet's style because countess Marie didn't get a fraction of that praise in the works dedicated
to her! With the exception of Frappier, all they can make of it is that he left Champagne to work on
the grail in
Flanders.
The
first problem is that Baldwin III of Jerusalem allegedly obtained a relic with
the Holy Blood of Jesus in
Jerusalem, which he
gave to his brother-in-law Count Diederik of Flanders, who took
it proudly to Bruges on April 7, 1150, where it is still
displayed today.
Which is very odd, because his son Philip ordered
Chrétien to write
a story about a totally different grail, a
golden platter, which Robert de Boron corrected. Secondly, Philip is credited for having provided a book about
the grail, which the poet merely had to put into rhyme. A book, of which no
trace has ever been found! The third problem is that the count proposed marriage to
Marie on numerous occasions -- and was rejected every time. The fourth and last
problem is the word play below, which could solve all of the above, but no one
has ever looked at it as a riddle. A silly explanation comes to mind: Could it be that our
scholars are so convinced of their own brilliance that they underestimate the
sophistication of a "medieval poet" and never questioned his ambiguities? Could
it be that they didn't even get his jokes and simply went by what fitted
the "general context" best? Let that be a warning to you! And now, in the
master's words:
| |
62 CRESTIIENS, qui entent et paine
64 Par le comandement le
conte
63 A rimoir le meillor
conte
65 Qui soit contez a cort roial
66 Ce est li CONTES DEL GRAAL,
67 Dont li
quens li bailla le livre,
68 Oeez coment il s’en delivre. |
62
CHRETIEN, who knows and strives
64
By the
count's
command
63 To rhyme the better
story
65 Which
is told at the royal court
66 It is the STORY OF THE GRAIL,
67 To which the
count gave him the book,
68 Listen how he
delivers it. |
These are the last seven lines of the prologue.
The word "quens" is used seven times for "count" as a title, but after
the sixth, the poet interjects the older and more ambiguous "conte"
to make a better rhyme. That in itself is nothing unusual,
Chrétien
did that in other poems as well. But right here in the heart of the mystery when
GRAAL is uttered for the first time?
Unless there is a hidden numerology. But where
will 7x4=28 get us? Are we ahead of ourselves?
What makes this riddle even more entertaining
is the fact that lines 64 and 63 are reversed in several manuscripts, which
forced Roach (above) to reverse them because he followed Hilka's
numbers who worked with a manuscript where they are reversed. How
much does this change the meaning, and did the poet play with this reversal
himself? Key to the solution is whether the poem was composed by a calculation
or a count's command. Or even by a "lesser" story? A good time to examine the many etymological meanings of
"conte"! Was Master Chrétien really the first and
only poet in history who composed a fully "interactive" poem?
If you question his sophistication, as
many have, take a look at a later jeu de mots when
Chrétien describes
the grail mystery
for the first time. No philology required here, just a clear mind:
Qu'aussi bien se puet an trop
teire
Con trop parler a la foiiee..
(One can also remain too silent
by talking too much at the same time)
2. Robert de Boron
Although he brought the
vessel and blood relic to grail romance, almost to taunt Chrétien
(and Phillip), he was also the first to recycle, because he claims that a
Vessel Of The Last
Supper was later used by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus to collect
some blood of Christ when they washed the corpse for
burial. A first indication that we are not dealing with a chalice, but a
simple bowl of sorts.
Armchair travelers might be interested to learn that this washing took place on
a rectangular marble slab, some thirty feet or so from Mount Golgotha,
the site of the crucifixion, and en route to the tomb, which is less
than 100 feet away. Amazingly, all three sites can be viewed today, on level
ground of course, right inside the
Church Of
The Holy
Sepulcher in
Jerusalem. Your gatekeeper checked this out personally
during the Solar eclipse of 1999, and under the expert guidance of a
Franciscan monk. Needless to say that he could not believe his
eyes and ears. If you want to really get confused, check Catholic records
and you'll learn that Helena, Constantine's mother, found a Venus temple at
the site, which she felt obliged to replace with a church. That would really
thicken the plot about the crucifixion -- making it a mystery we may not
want to waste too much time with...
The experts evaluate Robert's style as rather primitive, almost like the
Gospels, and consider him a minor bard. Which is unfair, because only one later
copy survived the times. They were probably uncomfortable with
his anti-Semitic remarks, but didn't dare to raise the issue. Nevertheless, and
it is
probably why his work launched the grail cycle that captured the
Anglo-Saxon world! Some of it is due to the talents of latter-day poets who
transported the scenario across the Channel by changing the French R
to a British L -- and Avaron became Avalon! Inspired
by this feat, others added Celtic elements and
changed Chrétien's GRAAL to GREAL, thus opening the door for modern
Brits to slide the letter G to the left, or westward, -- and
like magic the holy San Greal became a bloody Sang Real!
Yes, our quest is
going to be something of a "bloody mess",
literally. It has been said that the wide popularity of "blood
relics" during the Middle Ages was symptomatic of a period when blood was
spilled at the drop of a hat. That's why Wolfram said that the grail
provides any "food" we reach for. We, however, are taking the
position that only the first three sources can be trusted! Only Chrétien,
Robert and Wolfram are authentic sources and the originators of three different
cycles. This honor would have been restricted to Chrétien and Robert, but
because the former died too early the "second opinion" of Wolfram
warrants a third cycle. It's recent loss of importance
is due to misguided fusions with Wagnerian mysticism, which we will largely
ignore except for the nice music. Those of you who disagree should spend some time with the works of
the Swiss philosopher Rudolf Steiner -- and contemplate Steiner's wood carving of Lucifer at the
Goetheanum in Dornach -- in a purely Manichean sense. You'd be following in the footsteps of
your gatekeeper.
Hence, we take the position that Robert was an informed
initiate and take his claim seriously that he was the first to introduce the
"Estoire Dou Graal". Scholars have finally abandoned their foolish
assumption that Robert wrote the first "Story of the Grail",
but only when they discovered that he worked after Chrétien. They are still
overlooking the ambiguity of "estoire", which means story and
history. They are probably confused by the absurd "history" of Britain
of Geoffrey of Monmouth, a Catholic bishop. Scholars
cant risk their reputation with
ambiguities because they can’t be “nailed down” – as Robert would say. As
soon as we solve his riddles we shall see that he wrote the first
"History of the Grail", but from a Christian point of view.
The highlights of his
poem in a nutshell: Joseph of Arimathea is thrown by the inhabitants of
Jerusalem into a tower
where Jesus appears to him and delivers the sacred vessel with some secret
words. The relic keeps him miraculously alive until he is liberated by the
Romans. Joseph gathers his relatives and disciples and departs with the vessel
to settle in an unnamed district in the West. By fraternizing with the
Romans, the enemies of the Jews, we can assume that he moved to
Rome like Peter
and Paul. Once settled there, he places a single fish, caught by his
brother-in-law Brons, before the vessel and by a divine oracle the
good is divided from evil. When Petrus raises a question, the guilty
must depart in shame. When Moses is allowed to sit on an empty chair,
which may be Elijah's, he
is swallowed by an abyss. This ritual becomes a regular event and according to
its divine orders successive parties leave westward again, this time to the farthest
west.
Alain, the son of
Brons,
is the first to leave with eleven brothers and some "revealed
knowledge", but apparently without the secret words. Although his
brothers are married, Alain remains celibate.
The
next party is led by Petrus, who had to depart in shame. He has some
kind of brief or charter from heaven and must await the arrival of Alain's son
(or offspring) who would reveal the virtues of the Holy Vessel. His destination
are the valleys of Avaron (Vaux d'Avaron, not British
Avalon).
The
last to depart is Brons, apparently with the rest of the faithful. He
has the honor to take the sacred vessel and the secret words along, which Joseph
had delivered to him. Joseph remains behind, but according to
Waite la joie perdurable of paradise is guaranteed for him.
A.E. Waite has spent some time with these riddles and points out that according
to the symbolism of the trinity, only three had "possession"
of the grail: Joseph, Brons, and his grandson, who was to be born in the fullness
of time. Waite seemed a bit disturbed that Brons was a "Rich Fisher"
because he had, as far as we are told, only caught a single fish. We are
baffled by the fact that Alain's son may have been born in the fullness
of time by some immaculate conception. Another surprise is that Joseph did not come along as later poets
claimed. In fact, this could be our starting point by investigating how much disinformation
was written under the patronage of the Church. Conspiracy-theory buffs may want
to check if some of the multi-layered allegories had the purpose to obscure the
message of our three poets. Even some of
Chrétien's
continuators are not free from suspicion, especially when they worked for
Philip's descendants. Another piece of the puzzle could be Konrad Fleck's
Flore and Blancheflore!
That Robert's
"history" is written in a symbolic code is rather obvious. Petrus
and Moses are familiar names. Alain implies the Alans, and
Brons could mean B(a)rons and B(o)rons, from the alpha to the omega.
Could this be a secret message for posterity that Robert de Boron was an
initiate? Is his name a pseudonym as well? Is Peter's competition with Paul implied? What could the
disappearance of Moses mean? A reference to Elijah or the abandonment of Judaism? If it's not a story
about "wandering Jews", it could imply the origins of Christianity or
both.
Although disguised as an advertisement for future works, his last chapter could
very well be seen as an invitation to solve his riddles:
"Robert
de Boron should reveal, but only if you really want to know:
1.
The destination of Alain, the son of
Hebron. What became
of him, the name of the country, and who his offspring would be, and which
woman raised him.
2.
What kind of life Petrus led, what became of him, where he went, and where he
will be rediscovered. It will be difficult to find him again.
3. He should tell us what became of Moses, who was lost for so
long.
4.
Where the Rich Fisher went, and where he remained. Too bad he can't bring back
the one who is about to leave.
Each
of these four parts need to be brought together and each part told by itself
how it really was. But I am rather convinced that no human being can bring
these four parts together without first knowing the greatest story of the
grail, which is absolutely true. "
Robert concludes by saying that even if he needed to eliminate one of these
parts, he would have to tell the fifth and forget the other four. This could
mean that one of the four parts is different and that the fifth could either be
a poem about Perceval or Merlin. In Waite's opinion it was the latter because
he says that Robert had records of a "Fifth Branch", which became a
metrical romance about the prophet Merlin. (This alludes to grail magic, a
subject that will have to wait until we grasp the Magic Sword.)
The above riddle is a free adaptation from Konrad Sandkühler and is based
on a rare copy at the Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris), numbered 20
047. The German scholar notes that it is from the late 13th
century, and he regrets deeply that it is a flawed copy of a lost original. This
means that we may have to revise our opinion that Robert was a minor poet
-- because it is unfair to judge his talents from a bad sample.
Important
note: At this point, your gatekeeper is convinced that Robert was an
initiate. His Anti-Semitism could have a
similar rhetorical function as Chrétien's flattery, especially because key
figures in grail romance may have been Jewish. Not only in Robert's
version, where they clearly are, but also in Chrétien's poem. Hence, we may have to take Robert's advise and
study the poems of Chrétien and Wolfram before we attempt to solve
his riddles.
3. Wolfram von Eschenbach
Enough
copies of his poem "Parzival" survived the times that its
authenticity is beyond dispute. This is also why his
"second opinion" on Chrétien's
intentions is so important. He follows the French poem in great
detail, often scene by scene, even word by word, and achieves a smooth transition where
it ends by taking the hero to his ultimate goal.
However,
he not only brings Chrétien's work to
its logical conclusion, but he adds an equally long beginning by opening with
the adventures of the hero's father. And he continues the French
tradition by adding riddles to his work. Some of these have been
discussed in great detail and are considered solved, but other riddles are
either too complex or have not been recognized as such. This includes his word
creations, including character names, which can only be deciphered when
Chrétien's intentions are clearly understood.
At this time, our scholars continue to dismiss words like "Munsalvaesche"
(grail castle) and "lapsit exillis" (grail stone) as flawed
writing based on phonetics, or that the German poet had difficulties with
French and Latin. We will be dealing with Wolfram's true identity and
hidden code for word creations on another level, including riddles of a more
allegorical nature like The Three Drops Of Blood.
The
riddles that interest us here can be divided into three groups. The
first group is well known and considered by many scholars (sic) as
solved. The second group identifies riddles that are recognized, but a
satisfactory solution has not been found to date. And the third group
lists a few unrecognized riddles, or riddles that were not mentioned because no
one could think of a solution.
The most widely discussed riddles in Wolfram's work pertain to eilfte spân,
to his only mentioning of Chrétien, and to his elusive informant Master Kyot.
1) eilfte
spân
The young boy Parzival leaves his mother
to become a knight, and as soon as he is out of her sight she falls to the
ground and dies, heartbroken. The poet praises her virtues:
…ein wurzel der güete und
ein stam der diemüete, ôwê daz wir nu niht enhân ir sippe unz an den eilften
spân!
Mustard & Passage: ...a
root of goodness she, and a branch of humility. Alas that we do not now have
her like even to the eleventh generation!
Hatto:
...Thus did a root of
virtue, stem of humility, go the way that brings reward. Alas, that we no
longer have her kindred with us to the eleventh remove!
The consensus is that
eilfte spân was
revealed by the poet to help us find out when Parzival's mother lived to
date the grail events. This may also be a critique of
Chrétien,
because Wolfram implies that a generation was confused.
2)
Chrétien
This
is the only reference to the French poet and is made in the last
chapter.
Ob von Troys meister Cristîan disem mære hât unreht getân, daz mac wol
zürnen Kyôt, der uns diu rehte mære enbôt. endehaft giht der Provenzâl, wie
Herzeloyden kint den grâl erwarp, als im daz gordent was, dô in verworhte
Anfortas.
|
Modern
German prose adaptation:
Wenn
Meister Christian von Troyes dieser Geschichte Unrecht getan hat, so darf
Kyot, der uns die rechte Geschichte überliefert hat, darob wohl zürnen.
Zu
Ende erzählt der Provenzal, wie Herzeloydes Sohn den Gral erworben hat, so
wie es ihm geordnet war, nachdem Anfortas ihn verwirkt hatte.
|
English prose by Mustard & Passage:
In the event that Master
Chrétien de Troyes
failed to do justice to this story, that may well vex Kyot, who
had
furnished us the right story.
To the end the Provençal correctly tells us how Herzeloyde's son
had won the
Grail, as he was destined to do, after Anfortas had forfeited it.
|
We may want to check some
genealogies that go back eleven generations from roughly AD 1200. By
modern standards, we would probably come up with 220 to 330 years. Unless we are
invited to look up a specific family? Again, we need to turn to the French
master and ask ourselves why Wolfram aged some of the protagonists, especially
the girl in the tent that is violated by Perceval?
3) Kyot
The passage has led many scholars to
conclude that "Kyot of Provence" is another case of bad French by the
German. They think he meant Guiot de Provins, the Cistercian monk who
turned troubadour and became famous for the poem "La Bible". To support
this hypothesis Wolfram's ambiguous reference to Kyot as lachantiure is usually
translated as le chanteur, the singer.
The English adaptation by Helen M.
Mustard and Charles E. Passage (1961) offers a number of important
contributions, including the option l'enchanteur (magician), which they
base on the analogy lampriure
(L'Empereur). They also point out that Guiot was from Provins, near
Paris, and not from the Provence, thus implying another mistake of Wolfram.
Until well into the 20th century
many scholars, especially the Germans, were of the opinion that Kyot was
an invention of Wolfram. They feel that he followed the ideas of Chrétien
and Robert, who both claimed to have worked from sources, and took it as some
sort of contest or rhetorical method to enhance the authenticity of the story.
We are taking the same position as with
Chrétien,
that it would be a serious mistake to underestimate the
poets. As you will see below, Wolfram was a lot more sophisticated than these
scholars give him credit for. Not only does he claim access to a lost
source, but it was discovered by no other than the mysterious Kyot:
Kyot, the well-known master found the first
source of this adventure, discarded in Dolet and in heathen writing. To read it
he had to first learn the abc's, but without the art of black magic. It helped
that he was baptized, or this story would still be unknown. No heathen art
could reveal the nature of the Grail and how to discover its mysteries.
Then we hear something that could be a
contradiction, because the author of this discarded manuscript
understood the grail secret, but not its relevance for Christianity:
The heathen Flegetanis could tell us how the
stars (i.e. planets) set and rise again and how each circles before it reaches
its starting point. To their course humanity's affairs and destiny are linked
directly. Flegetanis saw with his own eyes in the constellations things he was
too shy to talk about, hidden mysteries. He said there was a thing called Grail,
a name he had read clearly in the constellations...
Kyot looked at the heathen information,
which may have been the famous, astronomical "Tables of Toledo", and
interpreted it from a Christian point of view. This motivated his ensuing
search:
Kyot, the wise master, set out to trace this
tale in Latin books to find the people dedicated to purity and worthy of the
Grail. He read the chronicles of many lands, in
Britain and elsewhere,
France and
Ireland, until he found the tale in Anschouwe. There he read the
true story of Mazadan, and the exact records about his family...
In other words, the Kyot we are trying to
identify was either a poet or a magician. He was a well-known and wise
master, a Christian, and an active scholar and traveler. After a long
search he found the Christian guardians of the grail in a place called Anschouwe.
It should be said that Dolet is usually identified as
Toledo (Spain), and Anschouwe as Anjou (France). Good luck in solving this mess!
B) THE
PROPHECY
When Wolfram leads his hero Parzival to the
grail castle, the "flying allegory" of the magpie returns as the
phoenix, which is paralleled in the heavens by the approach of the planets.
This cosmic drama leads Parzival to the ultimate fulfillment of his destiny. The hidden mysteries a Heathen astrologer
had seen in the stars is confirmed by a Heathen sorceress at Arthur's
court who proclaims Parzival's divine calling:
To Parzival she said: "Show restraint
in your joy, now that you are blessed, you crown of man's salvation! The
inscription has been read: you shall be Lord of the Grail...
Seven stars she named in heathen language.
The names were familiar to the rich and noble Firefiz (i.e. Parzival's
half-brother), who sat there both black and white. She said:
"Mark now, Parzival: The highest
of the planets, Zval, and the swiftly moving Almustri, Almaret, and the bright
Samsi, all show good fortune for you here. The fifth is named Alligafir. Under
these the sixth is Alkiter, and nearest to us is Alkamer.
Mustard and Passage attempt to show, like W.J.
Stein et al., that there is etymologic evidence that the names are derived from
the Arabic and designate Saturn, Jupiter Mars, and the Sun, followed by
Mercury, Venus and the Moon. Actually, the names are irrelevant because
the text is self-explanatory. It lists the orbits of the planets in the correct
relation to the sun, the bright Samsi.
C) LAST
RIDDLE
The
most amazing riddle was discovered by the German-American professor Otto Springer, as also pointed
out by Mustard and Passage. He discovered that Wolfram, although he claimed that
he could neither read nor write, organized his poem into sixteen books with a hidden system of
eight sections.
The first section of exactly 108 units (30
lines each) is the added story of Parzival's parents. This is followed by 3
sections of 108 units (109-432) until book IX, the core of the work, which only
has 70 units of 30 lines. Then there are again 3 sections of 108 units
(503-827), until the poem ends after unit 827.
For example, after the first section
of 108 units, 109 begins in book I with a first sign of life: The unborn Parzival stirs in his mother's
womb. Book II begins in the middle of unit 116, and all other units of 108
remain hidden within the books, with the exception that they coincide with the
grail book of only 70 units. This could be taken as solid proof that the units of 108 are a
riddle about the grail and deserve our full attention. (Hint:
Plato's Timaeus)
Springer has been close to solving the riddle,
because he points out that certain scenes have an odd similarity. Many
scholars are also baffled by both, the similarities and the contrasts
between Parzival and Gawan, the Grail Castle and the Magic Castle. Even Klingsohr and Anfortas share similar
wounds between their legs! Other important characters that play a role if we
attempt to solve this riddle are Feirefiz, who is black and white, and Jofreit fils Idoel, a seemingly minor figure.
Your gatekeeper suspects that Wolfram attempted
the first alchemist fusion of the Stone of the Wise with words, symbols
and ideas. This would mean that if we succeed in fusing the units by
superimposing them correctly, the characters should fuse as well to reveal
both, the historical models and the secret Truth of Mazadan. An important key
to the solution may be the foreword, where Wolfram outlines his concept. Just
remember to avoid those mirror images that are illusions like blind men's dreams. If you don't believe this,
try to grasp Wolfram inside his hand where he has no hair! That's another
important hint. We may have to start with Charles the Bald to find
someone hairy! Hairy like Elijah or a cinocephalo. Or was Elisha
the "bald head" we should be interested in? Isn't this what he was
called before he killed the heretics of Baal? An important clue,
because one of Chrétien's continuators said that "Joseph hid the grail
so well that neither someone bald nor hairy would find it".
*
*
*
BACK