Talk:Holy Grail/Archive 1

Archive 1

Grail theories

Many new legends have arisen over the centuries or during the modern revival of interest in the Grail that will describe it as either an emerald that fell from Lucifer's crown when he was thrown out of Heaven; the Philosopher's Stone; the Ark of the Covenant; a book of Jesus' geneology; the silver dish supporting John the Baptist's head; the sword used to cut off John the Baptist's head; the lance belonging to Longinus, the Roman soldier who transfixed Jesus' chest; a secret gospel written by Jesus; the cup used by Mary of Bethany to perfume Jesus' feet; the container of the Shroud of Turin; a round ball of glass filled with water held in a tree-like stand — the Thummim and the Urim; Aladdin's lamp, the Golden Fleece; or the Baphomet. One of the most popular theories claims that the Grail refers to both Mary Magdalene and a royal bloodline stemming from her marriage to Jesus.

This is ignorant tripe invented by adolescents who think "hey, it's mythology" and you can just make up anything. This is an abuse of Wikipedia's tolerance of "alternative" theories. None of these "theories" have ever been connected with the Grail myth in anything more than a comic book. Wetman 20:54, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Mary Magdalene stuff is becoming au courant theory, at least in fiction. RickK | Talk 20:57, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What? Connected with the OriGraro? Only in the anime "Meri Magareno"!

Not at all. See "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and "The Da Vinci Code". RickK | Talk 01:43, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wetman, the 'Grail Theories' text was an unfinished summarization of the following material from an external reference:

Other stories will describe the Grail as a large emerald that fell from Lucifer's crown when he was thrown out of Heaven; the Philosophers' Stone; the Ark of Covenant; a book of Jesus' geneology, written by Jesus;2 The chalice used to collect Jesus' blood; the silver dish supporting John the Baptist's head; the sword used to cut off John the Baptist's head; the lance belonging to Longinus, the Roman soldier who transfixed Jesus' chest; or a secret Gospel written by Jesus. According to Graham Phillips, the Grail is the cup used by Mary of Magdala to perfume Jesus' feet. Daniel C. Scavone suggests that the Grail is the Shroud of Turin. Baima Bollone writes that the Grail is the container of the Holy Shroud. Flavia Anderson, in The Ancient Secret claims that the Grail is a round ball of glass filled with water held in a tree-like stand — the Thummim and the Urim. Suggestions that the Grail was Alladin's lamp, the Golden Fleece or the Baphomet have also been made. For further information view: What is a Grail? by Dr. Linda Malcor, The History Net, "An Introduction to Current Theories about The Holy Grail" Chris Thornborrow. One of the oddest, but most popular, theories claims that the word Grail refers to a royal bloodline and that Jesus' descendents, through various secret societies, continue to manipulate global affairs.

Regarding those two sources: the first one is decent, but the second one is problematic. This is a subject which, for hundreds of years, has spawned reams and reams of shoddy scholarship, halfwitted vaporings, and complete nonsense (often all three at once), so it might be best not to rely too heavily on a poorly-referenced list compiled by some random person with no apparent qualifications. (Not that all the stuff on that page is worthless; at least one of those theories is well-known, and some of the others are at least attributed to one source or another; but caution and intellectual rigor are necessary.) —67.71.79.111 17:22, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My remarks were far from cautious, once again. Even tripe has sources though. A poem by someone. A drawing that was engraved and widely seen. Something. Wetman 19:49, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Multiplying Grails

An anonymous editor has inserted this: Still other stories claim that the Grail was moved variously to either Nova Scotia, or to Accokeek, Maryland by a priest aboard Captain John Smith's ship. Is this comedy, or what? Is the Holy Grail masquerading as a Dixie Cup in Moscow, Idaho then? I hesitate to revert this simply for underestimating popular ullibility... Wetman 00:57, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Loomis' research

This article is unsatisfactory because while it mentions R.S. Loomis' work (whom I have been led to believe was the authority on the origin & growth of the Grail myth) in the Bibliography, it makes little use of his research. He provides numerous examples of themes from this story as having appeared in Celtic stories -- the platter that Bran the Blessed serves from in the Mabinogion, the cup in the 11th century Irish Prophetic Ecstasy of the Phantom (Baile in Scail) which forms the center of this story, & the similar Adventures of Art Son of Conn.

And there is no mention of Jessie Weston's work (e.g. From Ritual to Romance), which while refuted by Loomis still has its followers. And I know of no authority who would insist this tale has a Gothic origin.

I have fixed its earliest mention, where it is not a Christian relic, but an arguably magical, or perhaps even pagan, object. -- llywrch 21:00, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, that's partly my fault. I came to this page as-is and wanted to include a more scholarly interpretaton based on Loomis' work. However, I haven't gotten around to doing it yet--so all that's included is a reference to it. DonQuixote 22:16, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Surely adding a reference to a standard work is always a good idea, even if you can't get hold of a copy at the moment. I've often been guilty. Wikipedia is still a work in progress. --Wetman 23:13, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Excuse my harshness, then. I'll see if I can't rewrite the introduction to fit Loomis' ideas into the article; I have 2 of his essays which set forth his thesis. But some note of this defeciency is needed, in order to alert the reader that there is a problem here, & to treat the material accordingly. -- llywrch 19:53, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia reintroduces the lost secret of elite education:

CAVEAT LECTOR

--Wetman 21:40, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I added "Origins of the Grail". I tried to keep it as simple as possible, leaving out a lot of extra information such as the possible origins of the Fisher King, possible meanings of the relics, the migration of the tale from Britain to Brittany, etc. DonQuixote 22:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The best book I've read on the subject is "The Holy Grail: Imagination and Belief" (by Richard Barber) ([1]). Maybe one of the editors of this article would like to get it out from the library to help with the article? porges 23:05, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC) (There's a short review by the Guardian: [2])

I changed a few things in the "Fate of the Grail" section, mostly to correct slightly wrong information and to make it more clear. I took out the line about Wolfram's Parzifal being one of the earliest books about the grail, because there were quite a few between Chretien and it. I also reworded the second paragraph to make it sound less like the Grail is a real object waiting to be found. And I said the stories about the grail being in Maryland and Nova Scotia were local folklore. I would assume they are, if they are not then a source should be added as I've never heard this anywhere.

Chretien needs to be discussed much earlier in the article, as it is because of him that the Grail became as popular as it did. I'll add it when I have time if everyone's okay with this.--Cuchullain 17:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Added a section on Chretien.--Cuchullain 19:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Well written. In fact, I think it deserves its own section. Also, there should probably be a bit about the Breton conteurs from whom Chretien (directly or indirectly) drew his material (probably under The Grail and Arthurian Legend or a short section before Chretien's section but within Beginnings of the Grail in Literature). DonQuixote 02:32, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, because of this new bit, The Grail Canon section should probably be tidied up a bit. DonQuixote 02:38, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Since Barber disputes the Celtic pre-origins, the Early forms of the Grail section needs to be sourced, and brought to NPOV. Charles Matthews 10:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Just a helpful reminder, he mean Richard W. Barber and his book The Holy Grail: Imagination and Belief (2004) which is mentioned above (porges 23:05, Apr 11, 2005). Now that you've mentioned Barber's criticism of the Celtic origin, I'm obliged to get a copy of his book. DonQuixote 15:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the new section Beginnings of the Grail in Literature should come before the Origins of the Grail. It might make it easier to include info on the origin of the legend in context (for example Loomis and Barber's research)--Cuchullain 21:18, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

I removed this link:

• Free Video - Interview with Mark Amaru Pinkham, renown author and authority on the Knights Templar and Holy Grail Discusses the mysteries of the Holy Grail, his connection and friendship with the Sinclair Clan, the energy of Roslyn Chapel and why it was built, and the perfection of the Sacred Geometry in the construction of this chapel. He talks about the origin of the lineage of the Johanites and rites of this ancient lineage, where the Templars went, and where 5 cases of treasure is believed to be. He talks about the Knights Templars and Mystery Schools as well as the mission of the Knights Templar.

If someone really wants to keep it, they should at least change the description so it sounds less like an advertisement.--Cuchullain 22:27, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Why link to a computer game?

Why should the ending of this sentence in the first paragraph

A theme joined to the Christianised Arthurian mythos relates to the quest for the Holy Grail.

link to the computer game Conquests of Camelot? Does it have any relevance in broadening the definition of Holy Grail? I suppose omitting the link at all and reword the sentence. The c. game could be mentioned in the "See also" section, if at all. Anyone share the same opinion? Or is there something in it I'm missing?

Oneliner 23:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

You're right, I took it out.--Cuchullain 23:36, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Moved for cleanup

The following interpretive mix of uncited gospel, secondhand medieval legend, etc, is moved here. Any source for this elaboration? Is there anything else here that is not already more logically discussed in the present article?:

"During the Last Supper Jesus took the bread, he broke it and he said: take and eat, this is my body; then he took the goblet and said: drink all, because this is my blood of the alliance poured for all in remission of the sins. The day after, Friday of Passion, Jesus was crucified. When he was taken from the cross, one of its disciples, Joseph of Arimathea, wrapped him in a sheet and carried him in the family grave. While the body of Jesus was washed and prepared for being buried, some blood drops of, excited from his wounds; Joseph collected it in the same goblet that was served for the consacration of the Last Supper. Joseph left Palestine and brought to Britain the Holy Graal, here it remained for 5 centuries, entrusted the clergymen of the church Aquae Sulis. In the VI century because of the threat of pagan armies they wanted to carry it in a surer place. Therefore a clergyman charge to carry it to Rome to the Pope. But when he arrived to the Comacina Island, because of the Longobards invasion, he was forced to stop. To the Holy Graal was given the merit of the succeeded resistance against the Longobards and it was build one church (on the island) in its honor. With the victory of the Longobards on trying to carry the Holy Graal in safe, hiding it in a lost place in Val Codera, from where its traces have gone lost."

It surprises me that there happened to be a church already waiting in Britain for Joseph seeing as he would have been the first Christian to step foot on British soil.--RandallFlagg 13:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Glastonbury connection

Robert de Boron tied Joseph of Arimathea to the Grail; the Glastonbury connection is conjecture. They were notorious forgers, but there isn't any definite evidence they ever said anything about the Holy Grail. Loomis devotes a chapter to this in The Grail.Wetman, you may be thinking of their material on Joseph as the first Christian bishop at Glastonbury, which doesn't belong here. Also, I'm curious as to what you think my agenda is.--Cuchullain 02:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Assuming there are no further objections, I have moved the Joseph of Arimathea line back to the first paragraph.--Cuchullain 22:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Blood of Jesus? If he died on the cross he wouldn't bleed. If he was still alive when taken down he would bleed. Isn't it obvious? Austin 31 Jan 2012.----

Valencia Santo Cáliz

The main article says There are cups claimed to be the Grail in several churches, for instance the Valencia cathedral. . Name other. Catholic burocrats are very good about contradictions, specially after the criticism of Luther.

The Valencia Vessel is reported as the "Santo Grial" in Spanish. It is documented since 1300 AC in the archives of the Crown of Aragon, and also exists a document circa 1100 which is suppossedly a forgery but it also names the Chalice. According the records it has been stored in Siresa, Jaca, Zaragoza, Barcelona, and finally Valencia. Note the phonetic appeal of the first storage site, the town of Siresa. Note also that the French arturic cycle was composed about the same age, so it is very feasible that the author of the Grail Cycle were inspired by the contemporary existence of this cup.

Of course, no documentation exists about this Grail before the XIIth century. Popular leyend relates it to St Lorenzo, who was native of the nearby city of Huesca. In this legend, and due to the prosecution in Roma, this saint had send some valuable possesions to his own family in the north of spain. Arivero 11:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Is the vessel called the Santo Cáliz a purported Holy Grail? I thought it was a purported Holy Chalice. That is what the Holy Chalice article says, as well as other sources [3]. -Willmcw 22:43, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the Corpus Christi procession at Valencia," The float of honor is the Roca del Santo Grial, with a larger-than-life reproduction of the Holy Chalice of Valencia, maintained by tradition to be the very cup used by Jesus to institute the Eucharist." (source: http://www.archden.org/dcr/archive/20020424/2002042416ln.htm) Some Wikipedian has a project to disentangle the Chalice of the Last Supper from the Grail legend of the chalice at the Crucifixion. As many quotes such as the one above could demonstrate, disentangling the two is not easy, even with an urgent agenda. --Wetman 01:49, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What are we tryimg to say about the Holy Chalice? That it is often mistaken for the Grail? That they may be the same thing? User:Wetman, I don't understand your edit. Can you explain? Cheers - Willmcw 00:40, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) Explained above. Are you the one trying to disentangle the two legends? --Wetman 01:49, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I certainly don't have an urgent agenda. Do you? I think that there are two separate relics being discussed. It may be worth pointing out that they can be mixed up, or that some people think they are the same thing, but that doesn't mean that they don't have separate existences. If there is confusion then a good task for an encyclopedia is to note that confusion and try to rectify it. What's the problem with that approach? And I'm really confused when you write that Christian revisionists insist they are different. Are there any who insist that they are the same thing? Who are these revisionists? -Willmcw 05:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The point of artfully disentangling what are patently inextricably connected legends, as so clearly demonstrated at Valencia, is a prelude to arguing that, though one may be a legend, the other is "authentic". I'm glad to hear that no such agenda is involved, for the medieval poetry certainly conflates the grail from the supper and the chalice from the crucifixion, or is it the other way round, right from the start. As every reader knows. --Wetman 10:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have removed The vessel of the Last Supper, a smallish cup made of marble is not lost, in fact it is still identified with several venerated relics, especially at the Spanish Cathedral of Valencia. since it includes statements which belong at Holy Chalice. "Is not lost" is a strange phrase in this case. --Henrygb 00:44, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

chalice or grail?

The text begins by defining the thing as a vessel from the last supper, and two paragraphs later, it says it may be identified with the chalice, which is defined (in its own page) as the vessel from the supper. So which one is the blood vessel, and which the wine vessel?Ladypine 15:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Er... being grown as catolic, this is new to me. Christ claims that the wine vessel is the blood vessel: Drink, this wine is my blood, and this one is the chalice and the grail. Of course it could exist a vessel during the cruxifixion. In fact there was some tools to clean Crist's body and to prepare it during the burial, but it is unrelated to the Holy Grail; it could be discussed perhaps related to the Turin Sindone. Arivero 11:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Most commonly it is identified with the Holy Chalice, but sometimes it's the dish Jesus ate from during the Last Supper, and sometimes it's something else. It depends on which version of the story you read. Is that what you're asking?--Cuchullain 19:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

No. I refer to the way the Holy Chalice page begins, vs. the way the Holy Grail page begins. The contradict. From The holy grail: In Christian mythology, the Holy Grail was the dish, plate, cup or vessel used by Jesus at the Last Supper, said to possess miraculous powers.. From the holy chalice: In Christian mythology the Holy Chalice is the vessel which Jesus used at the Last Supper to serve the wine. I understtod that there is a supper vessel and a blood vessel, and they are often the same. My question is which is the correct terminology for which? Thanks, Ladypine 10:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Holy Chalice is always a cup, specifically the one used by Jesus to pour the wine at the Last Supper. Some stories have the Grail as a vessel used to catch Jesus' blood while he's on the cross; in those stories it can also be the Holy Chalice, or something else.--Cuchullain 03:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of this, I want to move the "Four medieval relics" section to Holy Chalice, or at least shorten it substantially. It's more about that anyway, and adds a lot of unneccessary length to the article.--Cuchullain 22:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

As there hasn't been any objections to this in over a month, I went ahead and moved it.--Cuchullain | talk 06:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

RE: The removal of the Arms of Sir Robert Bell, from the 16th century; Crest depicting the Holy Grail. Dear (Bill) Cuchullain. The image that you have removed is period art, simular in many respects to the other illustrations that portray the Holy Grail, that are incorporated into the article. Perhaps you are an Art History major in college, so I would encourage you to consult the Victoria and Albert museum, London, for the many references that you have requested, and to discover further details concerning stained glass, and further to learn more about the other examples of this period Art Collection, of which from what I understand is currently on display, however with the original panels of glass in brilliant colour. You may also wish to consult the college of arms, London, to enquire details concerning references to the art and science of heraldry. I hope this is of some help. Wales. (Richard)

The other images are of the Grail, yours just shows what is apparantly a chalice. If it really is a picture of the Holy Grail, you need to provide a source indicating this, otherwise the image has no place in this particular article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, this matter falls within the context of Art. I note that one of the images that appears in the article could be interpreted metaphorically as a chalice of light, or a Grail, as Pollard observes: "Arthur Rackham - "How at the Castle of Corbin a Maiden Bare in the Sangreal and Foretold the Achievements of Galahad", from The Romance of King Arthur and His Knights of the Round Table, by Alfred W Pollard, 1917.jpg"

The Achievement of this particular heraldic example depicts the Holy Grail, and is from 1577, (16th century). This substantially predates the other images that appear in the article, so perhapas the artist from one period had a different picture in mind. Please consult the references that I have already afforded you above, or you may wish to consult the following sample of links: http://www2.sas.ac.uk/warburg/Mnemosyne/Image/aesthetics.htm http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=514 http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/Early+Christian+art+and+architecture I hope this has contributed some help. Wales 03:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

New article: List of alternate interperations?

It seems that there are quite a few alternate interpretations out there. Are there enough to warrant a new article, "Holy Grail: List of alternate interpretations" ?

A few that come to mind are the Gnostic interpretation & related Alchemical/Hermetic interpretation, the Jungian interpretation, or the recently put-forth interpretation by the documentary "The Pharmacratic Inquisition" that it is the Amanita Muscaria mushroom.

24.18.35.120 05:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed silly phrase

Removed Dan Brown rocks my world from article.

Yes, thank you.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Beyond the da Vinci Code

Chris k 01:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC) This section of the article seems to be headed increasingly off-topic and should probably be assigned to a separate article.

As it was just some sort of unsourced original research or opinion, I've just simply removed it. Kuru ^talk 02:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Even better.Chris k 03:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Good work.--Cúchullain ^t/c 09:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Coat of arms

I just noticed the coat of arms for Sir Robert Bell is tagged as "fair use", which means it can be used on the article for the person, but not here. I've never thought it was a clear depiction of the Grail anyway.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sangreal

The Cosmic Grail will recur on May 21, 2012! - http://marmarcelcel.de/www.marmarcelcel.de/sangreal_1.html - Mar Cel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.159.223.8 (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

THE GRAIL IS MARY MAGDALENE AND THE HOLY BAB SARA/ST.SARA SOPHIA CHRIST

Mary was with child and by Jesus at his death and his child Sara Christ later to be known as Saint Sara of Egypt grows up in the poor getos of egypt later forced into working as a slave as a teenager to feed her sick mother how will be dead in the morning...later she is taken by the local Church and grows up to be a wise woman and saint in Egypt later she died of what is known as Brest Kancer today and that is where it ends but after her death some said she would return like her father but to bring hell to ruens and bring rebith to the earth after the end of days and she would bring new hope to humanity, some said she will Restore the Lord's Children to Eden and punish the wicked souls to purgatory.

I may have given offence by removing this to the talk page, but could it wikified or encyclopedia-ised somehow?? I'm not entirely sure what the author is trying to say. Lou 04:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It's worthless nonsense, and it's good you removed it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggest Protection

May I suggest something? Given how most of the recent edits has been nothing but nonsense and vandalism and reverts, I suggest that someone requests an admin to protect the article from unregistered and new users for a while. crazyviolinist 02:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Vague accusations aren't helpful. What exactly is nonsense and vandalism?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.150.205.93 (talk • contribs)

If you look at the page history, there has been a lot of vandalism recently, ie adding unhelpful material to purposefully damage the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Evola

172.xxx, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but your additions of material on Julius Evola are not sourced. You need to provide cites to the books he makes those claims in (see WP:CITE). I turned your external link to the GNOSIS article into a real citation, but this is only good for the claim that Evola influenced the Priory hoax, not for his broader claims. If you don't provide sources, I'll be removing the material again after a few days.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, if anyone thinks the Evola info (or any of the other info) should be removed on the grounds that it isn't notable, you have my support.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the seeming goodwill. Whether we like it or not, Evola is important in the history of ideas and his popularity among certain esoteric and conservative circles in the Western world is increasingly rising. I shall provide the exact references shortly.

I'll give you that. Thanks for adding the citations, it looks workable now. Cheers, Cúchullain ^t/c 03:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Holy Chalice?

Isn't that the same thing? I don't see why these articles are separate? --AW 14:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

They are not the same. Holy Chalice is an article on historical artifacts claimed to be the chalice used by Christ at the Last Supper; Holy Grail describes an item from literature that often, but not always, identified with the Holy Chalice.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

But this article says "Some of the legends about the Holy Grail are interwoven with the legends of the Holy Chalice." If they're legends, then it's not necessarily a historical fact. Is the difference that one was from the Last Supper and one held Christ's blood when he was crucified? That would make more sense. --AW 17:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The Holy Chalice is by definition supposed to be the chalice of the Last Supper. The article describes several artifacts that are claimed to be this chalice and the legends surrounding them. On the other hand, the Holy Grail is a legend of medieval origin that is frequently, though not always, identified with the Holy Chalice. This article describes the origin and development of the legend itself. As a literary concoction, it has no set identity; in some stories it is the Holy Chalice, in another it is a stone that fell from the sky. That's why the entries are seperate.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that should be explained early in the article then. The first couple of paragraphs are confusing, as is the link for Holy Grail before the intro paragraph. --AW 18:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

All right, I'll try to get on making it clearer it soon.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter

I've removed the Harry Potter reference from "Modern retellings", pending the materialization of a reliable source. --Tony Sidaway 11:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Irish cauldron thing

Took out 'The legend may combine Christian lore with a Celtic myth of a cauldron endowed with special powers.'. I have no real issues with this, in fact, I tend to agree, but I do believe this warrants some sort of verification. Cronos2546 00:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's discussed farther into the article. Those are the two most common interpretations of the story's origins, so it ought to be mentioned in the lead. I'll try to make it more clear.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternative Interpretations

So alternative interpretations of the grail like that in Dan Brown's - The Davinci Code are what?

A mixture of half-truths, willful distortions, and outright lies, mixed together into a ludicrous conspiracy theory that very few historians and mythologists take seriously: that's what such "alternative interpretations" are. The Da Vinci Code is fiction, and the foolishness that inspired it -- such wonderful works of "history" as Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Templar Revelation -- deserve to be labeled as such. See Priory of Sion.

Not that the article shouldn't mention those alternative interpretations, and I'll write the section myself if I can get through the aforementioned nonsense without flinging the books across the room in disgust, but it should make clear that such interpretations rely on poor research, questionable evidence, and a methodology that is more reminiscent of conspiracy theory than serious academic work. --Mirv 15:31, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

While those alternative interpretations are being mentioned, don't leave out the legend that Mary Magdalene invented the Magdalena and that "some scholars" feel that she is the patron saint of spanking because of the ancient manuscript found in the Holy Land "Paddlin' Magdalene Home." We can all make this stuff up...

Actually Macarena is the name of an advocation of Mary, mother of Jesus popular in Seville. So yes, there is a relation of Macarena to the Grail. -- Error 00:35, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

''Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade'' would be a better source to cite than The DaVinci Code. After all, Henry Jones Sr. pursued grail lore as a hobby...more like an obsession! Papers please! Just a thought. Sdr 03:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The search for the Grail is merly the search for truth enlightenment. at one time the holy grail was forming social order.now it can be the search for extraterrestrials —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.67.237 (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Further Non Fiction

The actual grail is not the bloodline of Jesus

or a cup - a cup either form last supper or that caught blood from Jesus's death.

The grail is skyering device leading to the revelation of enlightenment and empowerment in those with the proper "seeds".

/s Lord GM, PS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.179.179 (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The Grail Church

Each time an external link has been provided to The Grail Church (aka Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ) website it has been immediately removed. Why? There exists external links to other websites without these being deleted. The removed link is to a church website, not a "personal website" as claimed by the individual expurgating the link. Why is the Grail as understood by a pure branch of Christianity less acceptable than the extant material found in the Wikipedia article? After all, there is tourist information, Roman Catholic places of worship, and even a contribution from the BBC (all promoting their wares) to be found in the external links.

contribs) 09:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

White and Nerdy

Is it possible that we should put a note at the top of the page refering to Weird Al's reference to this page in his song "White and Nerdy"? It has nothing to do with the article, but it should be put in because of people coming to this page purely for this purpose. 64.39.140.175 (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The Grail in Parsifal

This article states that the Grail appears in Wagner's opera Parsifal "periodically producing blood": i wonder if you could show me where this occurs in Parsifal since I'm not aware of that appearing in Wagner's libretto. The Grail in Parsifal gives off a kind of ethereal light, but blood? --Dogbertd (talk) 10:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A source is given, you'd have to check that out.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Modern Linguistic Usage

I added a short section on the phrase "holy grail" as it refers to something that many people seek but still eludes discovery and fades into a quasi-mythical status. I looked in the disambiguation pages and found nothing about this phrase but felt that it should be addressed somewhere in the "holy grail family" of pages (articles/disambiguation pages).Dcs315 (talk) 04:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the use of the term is particularly notable, and it's of only incidental connection to this article. I've removed it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Robert Richardson

Robert Richardson failed to provide a citation by Plantard to Julius Evola in any of his works.

Indeed, Plantard never referred to Julius Evola.

Evola never referred to the Merovingians.

Evola's ideas of the Grail involved the German Hohenstaufen imperial line. Nothing to do with France.

These are important points that need to be emphasised whenever Richardson's work is raised, as it demonstrates that Richardson's research was questionable.Wfgh66 (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of Robert Richardson into the Grail article certainly does not meet the criteria of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTABLE Wfgh66 (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

First, it does not matter that Plantard never mentioned Evola directly. That's not what Richardson is saying. He's saying that one of the sources for a concept of a Grail bloodline was Evola, and that Plantard adapted the bloodline idea for his own story. He never implies that Evola mentioned the Merovingians or that Plantard gave Evola as one of his sources (which he wouldn't, since he claimed his story was true.)--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And WP:NOTABLE refers to whether the topic of an article is worthy of inclusion of an encyclopedia, it says nothing about the sources used to write the article. Richardson's article looks fine to me.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Evola's book is cited in the same paragraph about Plantard, then it should be appropriate to comment on what it contained and whether Richardson's comments about Evola were accurate. Since Richardson could not find a direct reference to Evola made by Plantard, it matters a lot because Plantard gave his sources in his works. Plantard even once provided a Bibliography that in itself was a crucial indication of what his sources were. Richardson provided no evidence that Plantard adapted his concepts about the bloodline from Evola's interpretation of the Grail. Plantard's bloodline and genealogies in the Priory Documents had nothing to do with the Grail but with Dagobert II, the source of which originated in the 1960 magazine "Les Cahiers de l'Histoire. Richardson could not state that Evola mentioned the Merovingians in his concept of the Grail if he did not mention them in the first place. The paragraph about Richardson remains misleading and needs to be corrected for various reasons. Not least because of the fact that Plantard, a Gallic esotericist, would never have been inspired by esoteric ideas contained in Italian sources, which would he would have regarded with contempt (and vice versa).Wfgh66 (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

When news first broke during the 1980s that Plantard's claim of descent from Dagobert II was inspired by an article found in the No 1 issue of Les Cahiers de l'Histoire (1960), Plantard produced Fake Evidence by way of claiming that the article was really written by his late wife Anne-Léa Hisler: producing a bogus cheque and bogus covering letter from the journal paying her for the article (Philippe de Cherisey, L'Affaire Jean-Luc Chaumeil, 1985).Wfgh66 (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your complaint. Richardson is only saying that Evola was one of the sources for the "bloodline" concept, and makes the argument that that inspired Plantard to come up with his own. Your assertion that Plantard would not have been inspired by an Italian is just conjecture. What do you think needs to be corrected?--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The genealogies in Plantard's Priory Documents are not called "Grail Bloodlines". There is no mention of the Holy Grail by Pierre Plantard and Philippe de Cherisey in any of their works. It was Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh who foisted the Grail over the Priory Documents. Evola is not even a secondary source. Richardson introducing Evola into the Plantard equation was every bit as mistaken as introducing the Grail into the Priory of Sion.Wfgh66 (talk) 08:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You should have said before that your issue was that Plantard does not mention the Grail. However, it still doesn't matter, as Richardson's piece does not say that he does. All he says is that Evola was one of the originators of the idea of a phony bloodline, and he puts forth the argument that Evola's bloodline concept is a likely source for Plantard's. He does not make any statement of fact about them, he just notes the similarities in ideas and themes between Plantard's work and Evola's. Perhaps you should read the article more closely.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact has been established even by Richardson that Plantard's inspiration for choosing the source of his bloodline in Dagobert II lay in the magazine "Les Cahiers de l'Histoire" No 1 (1960) - there was no need to introduce Evola at all, and if you spread your net wide enough you will see similarities of ideas and themes relating to divine kingship and special bloodlines throughout the history of esotericism over Europe. Wfgh66 (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, the issue never was where Plantard's inspiration for choosing Dagobert II was from. This is not an article on Plantard or his hoax. The only reason to mention Plantard at all here is connections between him and the topic of this article. I don't know if Plantard mentioned the Grail or not (Richardson does not imply that he does, however), but Evola sure did, and according to Richardson Evola influenced Plantard, who in turn influenced the Holy Blood, Holy Grail guys (who obviously mention the Grail.)--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Not only did they not mention the Grail, but both Plantard and De Cherisey rejected 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' during the early 1980s, although that is not publicised for obvious reasons. Philippe de Cherisey, Jesus Christ, his wife and the Merovingians (in Nostra, ‘Bizarre News’ N° 584, 1983). Wfgh66 (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I reiterate that the only reason to mention Plantard here is the connections between him and the Grail (indirect connections in this case), and that Richardson does not say Plantard mentions the Grail.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

But you state in your article that Evola's ideas inspired Plantard which in turn inspired 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' and yet Plantard rejected 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail'. Wfgh66 (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So what? Obviously Plantard still influenced the Holy Blood guys, whether or not he liked what they said. Plantard's relevance to this article appears to be based on 2 separate things: first, that Richardson claims he was influenced by Evola, who did write on the grail, and second, that he influenced Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which obviously discusses the Grail.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Richardson was unable to demonstrate that Plantard used Evola.Wfgh66 (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And so he just presents an argument. And we report it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Therefore it should also be reported that it's known what was the real inspiration for Plantard's bloodline, the number 1 issue of "Les Cahiers de l'Histoire" (1960), nothing to do with the Grail and nothing to do with Evola, but to do with the Merovingians and Dagobert II a theme that Plantard promoted between 1964 - 1993. Wfgh66 (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No it shouldn't, as this isn't an article on Plantard or his hoax.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Did Evola mention Stein in his book on the Grail, or was this another one of Richardson's fabrications, foisting Stein over Evola in the same way that he foisted Evola over Plantard. Citing unreliable authorities like Richardson is not a good thing. Wfgh66 (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This sentence of the article "Writer Robert Richardson argues that Evola's ideas about a Grail bloodline" is highly dubious.Wfgh66 (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Here you go again. What does this Stein have to do with anything? You need to use less meandering arguments if you want anyone to be able to understand you.

I looked up Gnosis (magazine) where Richardson's article was published, and it does not seem to be a reliable source. You could have saved a lot of time and effort if you'd brought this up before, instead of dropping all these seemingly random minor complaints on all talk pages where Richardson is mentioned.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What a fusion of contradictions. Plantard (Gallic and anti-semitic); Evola (Aryan); Stein (Jewish). Richardson argued that an Aryan's philosophy was fused together with ideas coming from a Jew by an anti-semite. Quoting Richardson: "To create the concept of the bloodline, Evola's ideas were melded with one other source: the doctoral dissertation of Walter Johannes Stein, originally published in Germany in 1928: The Ninth Century: World History In the Light of the Holy Grail.Wfgh66 (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

More rambling. We're done here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wfgh66 (talk) 06:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Walter Johannes Stein

Plantard did not mention Stein either. Unlikely, since Stein was Jewish and Plantard was anti-semitic. Wfgh66 (talk) 09:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed Richardson entirely as an unreliable source. Again, you could have saved a lot of my time and yours if you had just fully explained the problem at hand, instead of going on and on about several different ones. Good day.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Islam and the Holy Grail

Does Islam acknowledge the Holy Grail? LOTRrules (talk) 13:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? It's obviously not one of their articles of belief, since it isn't even one of the Christians' articles of belief.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah...right...thanks for clearing that up. It's just a myth... LOTRrules (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this the real Holy Grail

Right I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask but I watched 'The Holy Grail' on Discovery Knowledge which seemed to point to there being the actual or at least very likely candiate for the real Holy Grail in Valencia so I decided to have a quick look on the interent which revealed this link: http://www.valenciavalencia.com/sights-guide/holy-grail-valencia.htm which I know is from the Valencia tourist board so may not be reliable but my question is: What evidence against this being the real Grail is there? --86.151.22.16 (talk) 09:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the literary Holy Grail. For the Last Supper cup, which the above is supposed to be, see Holy Chalice. DonQuixote (talk) 10:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, Cheers and sorry.--86.151.22.16 (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Gnostic approach on the Grail legend

So I think, as a Gnostic myself, it's only fair to include their approach to the subject of the grail. They may not even know this version exists, but it's only because this is a new idea. I wrote this the same way a Gnostic would write a text on the truth, or finding the truth within:

---

The Book of the Grail Legend on Earth

As written by Matthew, provided by the great first ruler of Mankind. Speak not of these writings to your elders, for they will surely destroy you.

In the world there came a time when the entire world was incarnated by one divine spirit, the incorruptible spirit Meirothea from Atlantis. She had been given a decision for the fate of her vortex which had disintegrated all their livelihoods on that plane of existence. Either she would create the perfect being to save them all or she would truly perish from her realm and never be seen again.

All the worlds she created can be seen in kind with the view of the Architect of Mankind. The first luminary, Harmozel, came from her eternal womb to sanctify the realm of which we live in, to provide it with a kind of eternal balance between good and evil. For it was always to be in this realm that there would be battle between Good and Evil, as is the will of the eternal father, the one whom is called Hertileus of Gremblas. This opposing will of the father versus the eternal mother, from whom Barbelo was conceived, gave birth to the unending light that is and will forever be Mankind in Heaven. Through all the creatures that had been created by her, Mankind was the first to possess the balanced nature of Good and Evil. It gave him light beyond measure in heaven, and the father blessed him with life on Earth so that he might one day become an eternal unified being in spirit, possessing all the attributes that only a huge number of people could possess.

One time or another, there was doubt in the fathers motives. He had sought out perfection from an imperfect realm, and the ones who followed under him began to revolt against his will. They could not comprehend the problem that they themselves wanted to fix because they were not gifted with foreknowledge, and out of desire for perfection they tried to assassinate Adam by tricking him into a world full of eating and fornicating with pleasure, and all that the first ruler had created was for nothing. If Adam could not be free, then all of his creation could not be for the good of Mankind in heaven.

Taking this into account, the Spirit took it upon herself to create Barbelo's image on earth, whom she named Eve. She took the rib from Adam to use his genetic blueprint and created for herself the second form of Man, which she called Woman. Her foreknowledge allowed her to see just what would come from this, in order to draw out the angels who rebelled against the father in heaven. When they came down upon Eve, the Spirit laughed at them, cursing them as fools, and left Eve to be brutalized in their presence. After they had done this, they took Adam and put him into deep sleep. Corrupted by their misdeed on Earth, they were no longer in control of their minds and became mindless, removing the link between Adam's soul and his physical body. This is why Mankind can no longer feel his spirit within himself, and created a hollow feeling in Adam's chest.

He spoke often of this to his son Seth, who was infuriated by the will of those in Heaven who betrayed them in such a manner. For his own justification he made the race of Men called Setians, who were his chosen descendants gifted with the true knowledge of the light in their genetic memories. These people are what became the bloodline from which the annointed one, Jesus, was born from on Earth. From this holy work came what is now called the Grail of earth lore.

When Jesus came to Galilee for the second time in his mission to save the people he could in the land of Judea, he took a small token of his appreciation from the Heavens and brought a man named Joseph to the land of Judea to witness him being crucified. Jesus knew of this event long before he was eventually crucified and took "Prepare the food for your followers" with him to his death. The book of which is written here is a text in which the Heavenly father communicates to Jesus, telling him of all that has been, and all that will be in the future. Knowing this, Jesus prepared everything to the heavenly father's specifications, in order to keep the purpose of Mankind intact. When he came to Judea for the third time, he brought Adam back to life for three days, saying to him "Implore of me what you will, brother, for we are truly blessed by the heavenly father,". When Adam heard of this, he said to Jesus "No man alive can truly compare to us, but we know our true purpose as well as we did three years before they were designed. Let it show that we have been here, standing together on Earth as it was written in your father's book."

When Jesus left Adam soon after passing for the second time, he remained in Judea for the following years before he was crucified under Pontius Pilate. The order was given for him to be brutally beaten for his crime, but when the Jews called to Pilate "We will report you to Caesar as a traitor!" he had no choice but to put Jesus on his cross, and send him to Golgotha to be crucified. This all came from the will of the Father as given to Jesus during his time on Earth.

Joseph, who was a carpenter alongside Jesus during his older days in Galilee, took himself to the top of Golgotha to bear witness to Jesus being crucified, as was his request. Jesus looked at Joseph as he rested on his cross, and with his mind implored Joseph to come before the Cross in secret, as to avoid the detection of the Roman guards before him. The devil had taken their minds into the realm of mindlessness, and they gambled and drunk wine until the sun set. Joseph took one of their cups from them, and placed it under Jesus's feet. The blood that dripped from his wounds dripped into the cup, and the Grail of legend was created from a Roman's cup and Jesus's divine blood inheritance.

When Jesus had passed his soul into the hands of his father, he took with him the divine right to become guardian of his kingdom, and remained over Earth until the end of time itself. He lay in wait of the one who would come from Josephs bloodline, because like himself Joseph was a blood descendant of Seth the eternal, and one of the chosen that would bring salvation for all mankind in pure transferrance.

Taking the grail to his home, he awaited Jesus to return to him as he had been told. When he finally came to Joseph while in prayer for his return, he told Joseph "Dearly beloved one, I implore you to drink from the cup which I told you to bring here with you. Taking from myself what I have given you will transform you into the next in my bloodline, for what came from me will eventually become you,". When Joseph took drink from the cup, he sat down and said to himself "I know my fate now. Yours has been sealed in this cup, and now it is time for it to be destroyed completely,". He created a fire outside his home and threw the cup into it, burning away the material cup and setting free the spirit of Christ which had been passed into that cup by his blood.

Amen.

---

I trust this to be true. I know there's alot of phrases that might confuse some people, but I will add footnotes to it if you like. I feel it's straightforward, but it may be necessary to think of different ways to read the same sentence to get the proper meaning ;) This is not from any book, it IS original research but I seriously think in this case that rule should be ignored for the simple fact that anyone can get the same story, in the same manner. Heck, just ask me how to try it for yourself :)

74.14.89.187 (talk) 07:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, one, it's too long. Two, it may be considered to be heresy by many, as it deviates so greatly from the mainstream gospels, and spark "a conflict" or whatever they're concenrd about. Three, no exceptions to the Original Research rule. Ever. period.Bioform 1234 (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, No original research is one of Wikipedia's core policies: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source."--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Theology

 I do not know how many of you speak greek, but the correct term is Theology, not mythology Iamanadam (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Mythology is more inclusive than theology. Mythology includes such things as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Holy Grail outside of theology (such as the poems of Chretien de Troyes and Indiana Jones and the Holy Grail). DonQuixote (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong again for the 10**19th time!

> According to Christian mythology, the Holy Grail was the dish, plate, or cup used by Jesus at the Last Supper, said to possess miraculous powers. <

No, this is wrong. The anglo-saxon Holy Grail legend collection is about an alleged cup, plate or vase used to collect Christ's dripping blood under the Cross and then this alleged object, which supposedly posessed various supernatural powers, ended up in early medieval England, then disappeared or was taken to a secret hiding place.

On the other hand the wine-drinking cup used at the Last Supper was never in England, it went from the Holy Land to Rome and then Spain directly and it was never said to have gained "magical" abilities. The smallish last supper's cup is made of stone and is still preserved and on display in Spain (recently both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI used it to celebrate the Mass).

Sorrowfully Wikipedia has again fallen victim to conspiracy theorists once again and the article spreads confusion to the readers, boosting Dan Brown and similar hype book sales, which is not "the purpose of an encyclopaedia. 91.83.19.148 (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Just like to point out that there's a difference between Christian belief and Christian mythology. Christian mythology deals with Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny...and the Holy Grail as depicted in such works of fiction as the poems of Chretien de Troyes and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. The Grail myth includes, however erronously contrary to your beliefs, the Last Supper cup, so it is included in this article. No conspiracy. DonQuixote (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Christian mythology includes all the stories associated with Christianity...most importantly the stories in the Bible. Were Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny there with the three wise men at Jesus' birth? Did they mourn when he was crucified? Are thier stories used by Christian priests in an allegorical manner to describe of Christian belief? No, they are not a part of Christian mythology!! 70.112.71.2 (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You said it right there: "all the stories associated with Christianity". Santa Claus might not have been at Jesus' birth (neither was the Wandering Jew), but Santa Claus is in part based on St. Nicholas. His story has been retold, embellished and elaborated over the centuries amongst Christian people who eventually linked him with the Christmas holiday. DonQuixote (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

91.83.19.148 has got a valid point, the article needs fine-tuning and an extensive overhaul. You cannot generalise with something like the Grail Romances because each individual author had his own take on the subject matter. There is no consensus of agreement in the Medieval Romances over what the Grail was specifically and specialist researchers are well aware of this. Wfgh66 (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If you read the full article (especially Origins of the Grail, The beginnings of the Grail in early literature, and Ideas of the Grail) you'll see that it's all covered. DonQuixote (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Then it's just the opening paragraph to this article that looks like it's come out of one of those "coffee-table documentaries" that they show on The History Channel. Wfgh66 (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, excuse me and sorry, but this page will not do. It's hopelessly biased towards those sources used by Malory and Tennyson. There's no account of Chretien's original and non-holy grail. Wolfram is demoted to an also ran. There's no account of the relationship of Peredur to Chretien. I am sorry if that's not what people want to hear, or something, but this is not an acceptable account of the grail story. Redheylin (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The quest for the Holy Grail makes up an important segment of the Arthurian cycle, appearing first in works by Chrétien de Troyes.[1]

- There IS no "quest for the grail" in the original story of Chretien. There's a search for the castle where it was seen, a search for its meaning - NOT a search for the grail and the grail is not "holy". Redheylin (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE! If you don't like the intro, then be bold and rewrite it, but everything that you mentioned is in the article proper (particularly Origins of the Grail and Beginnings of the Grail in literature). If you don't like what's written in the article proper, then be bold and rewrite that as well (provided that everything is properly sourced). DonQuixote (talk) 04:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Don, understood and fair enough. The above is just a kind of courtesy, that "somebody is liable to get bold about this". I'd much rather not mess around with others' hard work without discussing. I see that below it says; "the object has not yet acquired the implications of holiness it would have in later works" in Chretien", but that comes after first; "according to Christian mythology" (meaning according to de Boron) and then "there are two theories of the grail's origin" (which is hardly surprising because there are at least two entirely different grails). To me, because the later definition is promoted above the original, the article has been written backwards! I do feel it would flow better like this;

"The grail started out not holy but part of the mysterious central scene of an unfinished romance. The popularity of the tale engendered speculation and people variously made of it a stone from space or else a Christian relic - the form in which it is best known today IN THE ENGLISH SPEAKING WORLD." I think I can back that up with references. So right material, wrong order! Thanks for answering. Redheylin (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether we like it or not, when most people think of the grail they think of the one from Christian mythology (Jesus, Last Supper, Grail Quest, etc.). In this regard, the article is adequate. Note how the intro starts from the popular Chrisitan myth of the grail and ends with how it can be traced to non-Christian roots. DonQuixote (talk) 07:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The lead has to be more general and accessible than the rest of the article (see WP:LEDE). The version of the grail best known today is the one that relates it to Jesus and the Crucifixion. This is not just in Malory and Tennyson, it is in many major works, like Robert, the Vulgate, the Post-Vulgate, the Prose Tristan, and of course Malory and most modern versions. The specifics are related further into the article. Of course any improvements would be welcomed, but I don't know what will be gained by being so technical in the intro that we risk confusing readers.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the "D'Artagnan" argument. "Most people name d'Artagnan as one of the three musketeers, so Wiki should say so too!" In this case, though, d'Q, it's an English-speaking-world bias as well as a common misunderstanding. I do note the structure of the article, and I am questioning its POV.

I do not find it "technical" to say straightaway that the "Christian allegory" of de Boron is just one of several adaptations of the original tale - the one best known in the English-speaking world, but not in France or Germany. Failure to do this is compromising the account of, for example "Peredur" and offering "Celtic" interpretations as against "Christian" before there has been any account of the different romances that give rise to thos interpretations. Back to front. I am suggesting nothing more than a historical sequence beginning from the beginning. It's amazing how much clearer it makes everything, so long as there is no ad populum undue weight.Redheylin (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

But we're still left with the problem of coming up with a clear, concise lead that summarizes all the information in a general way. We simply can't list every version and detail the whole development in the intro. I still think it's best to just name the most common version in the lead and leave the explanations for further on in the article. And it's not just the common version in the English speaking world - I'm willing to bet the "holy" version is still the best known in France (though admittedly it may not be in Germany); other parts of the world will only have encountered it through the modern versions. Perhaps we could say something along the lines of "the Holy Grail is best known today as the cup, dish, or plate... and then go on with it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Best known" seems reasonable. DonQuixote (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's the way to go. And by the way, thanks for being scholars and gentlemen.Redheylin (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

According to Christian mythology, the Holy Grail was the dish, plate, or cup used by Jesus at the Last Supper (also described as a stone), said to possess miraculous powers. The connection of Joseph of Arimathea with the Grail legend dates from Robert de Boron's Joseph d'Arimathie (late 12th century) in which Joseph receives the Grail from an apparition of Jesus and sends it with his followers to Great Britain; building upon this theme, later writers recounted how Joseph used the Grail to catch Christ's blood while interring him and that in Britain he founded a line of guardians to keep it safe. The quest for the Holy Grail makes up an important segment of the Arthurian cycle, appearing first in works by Chrétien de Troyes.[1] The legend may combine Christian lore with a Celtic myth of a cauldron endowed with special powers.

The development of the Grail legend has been traced in detail by cultural historians: It is a legend which first came together in the form of written romances, deriving perhaps from some pre-Christian folklore hints, in the later 12th and early 13th centuries. The early Grail romances centered on Percival and were woven into the more general Arthurian fabric.

Some of the Grail legend is interwoven with legends of the Holy Chalice.

Right, now the last sentence is a tautology so;

In the versions of the mediaeval Arthurian romances that are best known in the English-speaking world, the Holy Grail is a relic of the Crucifixion of Jesus, variously the Holy Chalice or else a cup used to catch Jesus' blood. The romances relate how King Arthur's knights sought this miraculous object and how the perfect knight Galahad succeeded. Robert de Boron's Joseph d'Arimathie (c 1200CE), drawing upon the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus, related that Joseph had received the Grail from an apparition of Jesus and sent it with his followers to Great Britain, where it fell into the hands of the Fisher King, Bron.

However, when the Grail first appeared, around 1180, in an unfinished poem by Chrétien de Troyes[1] the grail was simply "a" grail, a golden serving-dish, nor was it holy, though it emitted a light. The early Grail romances centered on Percival and were woven into the more general Arthurian fabric. But the popularity and mystery of this unfinished tale produced many retellings and continuations in various languages. In Wolfram von Eschenbach's Parzival the grail became a stone from heaven. In Peredur, a Welsh version of Chretien's tale, it was a platter bearing a human head. And in the more orthodox Christian versions immortalised by Malory and Tennyson it was, as mentioned, presented as a holy relic. Redheylin (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If you read the article proper, you'll see that this is mentioned. If you want to expand these sections, feel free to do so. Also, if you read the Holy Chalice article, you'll see that it isn't, strictly speaking, a tautology. It's like the relationship between Space Battleship Yamato (spaceship) and Japanese battleship Yamato, the former is a fictional version of the latter which has taken on a life of its own (in fact, the fictional one is more well-known world-wide). DonQuixote (talk) 10:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

the da vinci code

this article fails to mention the da vinci code under the modern literature section. the da vinci code is clearly about the holy grail.

219.94.166.8 (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC) amigojapan

The Da Vinci Code is inspired by Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and it is mentioned as such. DonQuixote (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The Da Vinci Code listed under Non-fiction?!!

I don't understand why Dan Brown's novel "The Da Vinci Code" is listed under the Non-fiction section of the article. By common usage, a "novel" is a work with fictional content (as noted in the linked WP article.) Looks like a big "whoops" to me. -- 192.115.133.116 (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC) (corrected 23:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

The novel was inspired by the "non-fiction" work Holy Blood, Holy Grail and is mentioned as such. Basically, the section is about that one piece of work plus its cultural influences such as novels. DonQuixote (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. However, I feel that a work of clear fiction, which is loosely based on a work of dubious credibility, is misleadingly categorized when it appears under the heading Non-fiction. I think the article as a whole would be better served if Dan Brown's novel is shown as being one in a progression of fiction works, following (chronologically) the Harry Harrison work that I cited. A forward reference can then be made en passant to The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail work, which makes a logical bridge to transition into the "Non-fiction" topic. --192.115.133.116 (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the actual wording is clear: "Such works have been the inspiration for a number of popular modern fiction novels."--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Jung and Franz

There are a number of problems with the way the theories of Jung and Franz are presented here. First, they were not historians or medievalists, like the other scholars listed here such as Roger Sherman Loomis, Richard Barber, and Joseph Goering. Rather, they were Jungian psychologists. Their theories about the Grail have not gotten a wide acceptance in modern scholarship; I would regard them as fringe, and therefore they recieve a huge amount of undue weight by being represented here in this manner. On top of being entirely overrepresented, the citations, where any are given, are not to peer reviewed reliable sources. They are to their own book, or to some website. As such the inclusion of their material fails both WP:NPOV and WP:V. I think a brief summation of their interpretations might have a place in the sections on modern treatments - if a secondary source can be found indicating that they is important.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion on their "fringiness" is noted and discarded. Unless you can show that Princeton University Press has somehow become known for publishing fringe ideas by fringe authors. The authors are legitimate scholars and their works can certainly be cited. Nor is a secondary source needed any more than it's needed for other scholarly works cited. If you wish to qualify their views by citing other scholars opinions of their work, by all means do so. Yworo (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I trust Richard Barber's opinion that Jung and von Franz's book is, and I quote, "notable" will be sufficient for you to cease your ill-considered attacks on them and their work? Yworo (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice try. Barber does say that Jung's interpretation is notable, but not for its scholarship: "...there is a notable Jungian interpretation of the whole [Grail] myth by Emma Jung, C.G. Jung's wife, and Marie-Louise von Franz, a leading Jungian analyst, in their book The Grail Legend. Here scholarly argument is of no avail; if Jungian analysis is accepted as valid, then the argument of the book has its own value. For my part, I can accept that, in broad terms, this approach does shed some light on the way in which the Grail has been envisaged by readers, and on its symbolic and psychologocal implications. Where I hesitate is when the devotees of Jungian analysis try to support the broat thesis with detail."

He's clearly not implying that this novel interpretation really speaks to the origins of the Grail legend. He also dismisses Carl Jung's claim that the Grail was a "thoroughly non-Christian symbol", saying "he seems not to have studied its origins closely". He also provides further details about the faultiness of Emma Jung and von Franz's claims. Of course you have demonstrated that this is a notable interpretation, but it should go with the modern usage of the Grail legend, where it is a better fit.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I will shortly move the material down from the "early forms" section to the "modern interpretations" section. I'm sure this or some other compromise will suit all parties.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Barber's book may be a good source for various other modern interpretations of the Grail legend. I'll try to do some more work in this area.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest we swap the places of the two subsections of modern interpretation. Yworo (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a thought... though I think that since the modern fictional versions began earlier than the non-fiction interpretations/re-interpretations it's more intuitive to discuss them first.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Julius Evola

Julius Evola is no fringe figure. Routledge just published a 200 page book on him and he is increasingly being studied academically.

Not including Julius Evola at least marginally and his role in the modern Grail-mythos is simply academic irresponsibility or idiocy and should be corrected soon. Wikipedia only makes itself look stupid by these types of things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that the book in question didn't discuss his ideas about the Grail. That hardly shows that his ideas about the Grail aren't fringe. Dougweller (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't get it. Whether they are "fringe" or not, they indirectly, to say the least, played a significant part in the modern Grail fascination and "mythos". That is all that matters from an encyclopedic standpoint.

So is Routledge fringe in your mind? Just wondering...

And yes, I have bought the 130$ book from Routledge on Evola and you are right, the Grail is not extensively discussed. On the other, tons of other respectable scholars and academics have discussed this topic (Richard Smoley, Joscelyn Godwin, etc. Are they considered "fringe"? I am honestly asking. I don't get Wikipedia's concept of "fringe."

See WP:FRINGE. Routledge isn't fringe but that doesn't mean they don't publish books that are fringe. Mysticism is fringe although it can be written from a non-fringe perspective. Maybe Godwin does, it doesn't look as though Smoley or Evola do. Maybe you can find a non-fringe source discussing Smoley and his ideas on the Grail? Dougweller (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so far as I can tell, Evola has full legitimacy to be included in the article based on the fringe reference you gave me. In history, what matters is not if every individual was perfectly rational but whether they were historically influential or not, and at least in this area especially, there is loads of academic essays on Evola, the Grail and how it interweaves with the modern understanding. I can find and pull them up later.

All I'm trying to say is, like, an encyclopedia inevitably will mention how in premodern times doctors would (erroneously!) "bleed" patients, but it obviously is wrong and fringe and totally irrational, but it existed, it was part of history, and was part of the development of medicine. Do you know what I mean?

I think Evola is an immoral sadistic freak myself but that doesn't mean his real influence should be discounted for whatever reason (?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The Grail in the Mabinogion

The date of Grail sequences in the Welsh folktales, the Mabinogion are older than the surviving manuscripts (13th century).

I'm pretty familiar with the Mabinogion and I can't remember a single reference to the Grail in the Three Romances or in "Culwch ac Olwen." Certainly, characters typically associated with the Grail appear in several tales, but that's rather stretching the connection. I also imagine that the Cauldron of Rebirth that Bendigeidfran gives to Matholwch in "Branwen Ferch LLŷr" is related to the Grail legend, but I would consider this more a matter of two tales drawing on the same tradition than the Grail actually making an appearance in "Branwen." Am I missing something major, or are there in fact no Grail sequences in the Mabinogion? I wanted to be sure before editing the page.

--Paulbee 04:22, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Peredur fab Evrawg has parallels with Chretien's Perceval, such as a procession of mysterious or sacred objects, including the bleeding spear: however, where Chretien has a graal, the Peredur has a tray holding a man's head swimming in blood. If the Welsh tales are the original source, then the Grail would seem to be something weirder and nastier than usually thought. (Also note the apparent obsession of the Perlesvaus/High History of the Holy Graal with severed heads.) --Franey 11:30, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is evidence that there was a Grail Myth amongst the Dobunni Celts, as "bunni" refers to a cup or chalice. It has been suggested elsewhere in Wikipedia that the name Hwicce also refers to the same thing. If so then the "loss of the Grail" may refer to the defeat of the Britons by Ceawlin of Wessex, in about 570 CE. John D. Croft (talk) 10:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a bunch of speculation. The usually cited Celtic cognates of the 12th-century Grail stories include the Mabinogion story about a magical cauldron, cups associated with sovereignty myths, and the like. Additionally, Chretien's original graal was a bowl, not a cup.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible Merging with Holy Chalice

I don't know if I should take this over to the "Holy Chalice" article, but I'll try asking it here first just to get some feedback. Is it possible that we could merge this page with the "Holy Chalice" article? Perhaps the contents of this article could be abridged and included under a new section "Legends Associated with the Holy Chalice"? If I were to request this over at the Holy Chalice talk page, would anybody here be fine with a merging? PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

From the Holy Chalice article:

There is an entirely different and pervasive tradition concerning the cup of the Last Supper. In this highly muddled though better-known version, the vessel is known as Holy Grail. In this legend, the cup was used to collect and store the blood of Christ at the Crucifixion. This conflicts with the notion that Peter might have used the cup of the Last Supper to celebrate the Mass.

So, probably not. DonQuixote (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've read that part. I just thought since both are the cup of the Last Supper, we could place the "Holy Grail" info under "legends related to the Holy Chalice." PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 01:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

From this article

The Holy Grail is a dish, plate, stone, or cup that is part of an important theme of Arthurian literature...The Grail legend became interwoven with legends of the Holy Chalice. The connection with Joseph of Arimathea and with vessels associated with the Last Supper and crucifixion of Jesus, dates from Robert de Boron's Joseph d'Arimathie (late 12th century).... (emphasis mine)

So, again, probably not. DonQuixote (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thanks anyway. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Holy Grail/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Holy Grail means 'two volkanos'. Nothing more.

Last edited at 17:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 18:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Holy Chalice

Above, it was said "They are not the same. Holy Chalice is an article on historical artifacts claimed to be the chalice used by Christ at the Last Supper; Holy Grail describes an item from literature that often, but not always, identified with the Holy Chalice".

Afaics, the "Holy Grail" is the term for the Holy Chalice as portrayed in medieval romance. Of course this can be treated as a separate topic, but then we need to get rid of the section about artifacts. The Holy Chalice article claims that

"There is an entirely different and pervasive tradition concerning the cup of the Last Supper. In this highly muddled though better-known version, the vessel is known as the Holy Grail. In this legend, the cup was used to collect and store the blood of Christ at the Crucifixion. This conflicts with the notion that Peter might have used the cup of the Last Supper to celebrate the Mass."

Almost every single statement in this is false or misleading. This would all work so much better if both articles were written based on secondary literature instead of by random editorialising.

I do suppose it makes sense to treat the "Holy Grail" as a literary topos in the romance genre separate from the more general "Holy Chalice" page. But it shouldn't be implied that the two articles are somehow about "separate" topics. --dab (𒁳) 13:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Dbachmann: You're responding to comments from 2007. Wikipedia was a much different place then. However, what I said then, that the Holy Grail is an "item from literature that's often, but not always, identified with the Holy Chalice" is accurate - in Chretien's Perceval, Wolfram's Parzival, and other versions, the Grail isn't the cup from the Last Supper. In Peredur, there's no "Grail" at all. This article and Holy Chalice discuss related topics, but it makes sense to have separate treatments of the literary object that takes various forms, and the real artifacts traditionally said to be relics of the Last Supper.

I wrote much of what appears here (I wasn't much involved at Holy Chalice), but again, that was 10 years ago. If you're offering to rework it based on "secondary literature instead of by random editorialising", I'll do what I can to assist, but comments along the lines of "this article would be better if it were better" aren't especially helpful.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent removal of sourced content

@Cagwinn: You need to discuss your edit on the talk page, with reliable sources backing your claims, otherwise it's original research on your part. Also, if you read the rest of this article, Troyes didn't write in a vacuum and scholars have been researching his influences, which includes what you're trying to remove. DonQuixote (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

In addition to being fringe (thus subject to WP: UNDUE WEIGHT) the paragraph in question is both nonsensical and irrelevant (the former paganism of Anglo-Saxons and Normans has nothing to do with the origins of the Holy Grail, which was the creation of the French author Chretien de Troyes in the 12th century); it is mind-boggling why you insist on re-inserting such a stupid thing into this article. Cagwinn (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Because you're improperly removing sourced content based on your personal analysis rather than discussing on the talk page to gain a consensus--especially since the source cited is also cited one paragraph before that. DonQuixote (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Utterly ridiculous! Do you even know anything about this topic?? The scholarly consensus is that Chretien de Troyes invented the Holy Grail (as we know it). Jung and Von Franz's book is absolutely FRINGE and neither author was an acknowledged expert in the field of Arthurian studies; aside from the fact that the sentences I removed are totally nonsensical (what does the former heathendom of the Anglo-Saxons[???!!!] and Normans - CENTURIES BEFORE CHRETIEN WAS BORN!! - have to do with Chretien's creation of the Holy Grail??), Jung and von Franz should not be regarded as a reliable source on the Holy Grail. Cagwinn (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not about how much you know (WP:TRUTH), it's how much you can verify by citing a reliable source (WP:VERIFY). If you read this article, Scholars have long speculated on the origins of the Holy Grail before Chrétien, suggesting that it may contain elements of the trope of magical cauldrons from Celtic mythology combined with Christian legend surrounding the Eucharist[5], the latter found in Eastern Christian sources, conceivably in that of the Byzantine Mass, or even Persian sources. -- so, yeah, it's nothing like what you're stating. At the moment, you're the one who's fringe because you're not citing any reliable source supporting your claim. DonQuixote (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Rather than telling me that, it'll be better if you show me by citing a reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

:Cagwinn: Stop being so rude, there is really no call for it. On the content, you are correct. The source is not reliable for the topic at hand. The authors were Jungian psycho-analysts, not historians. The specific material is also spurious on its face: there's no reason to think that a fictional object first described in the 12th century would have "arrived in Britain" at the time of the introduction of Christianity there, or to connect this with the Normans.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I apologize - just frustrated. Have removed my rude comment above. Cagwinn (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The Holy Grail and the Holy Blood

I was looking through the Notes and Queries for 1851 recently and there was an article on the Holy Grail in which it was stated that its alternate name Sang Real which referred to the Holy Blood being collected from when Jesus was on the Cross. Would 'the full reference' be appropriate for this article - or which other? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

more general meaning of the quest for the holy grail

I must say I'm disappointed - almost this entire article is deep down individual sources. There is no overall discussion of what the Holy Grail and the quest for it means, what it signifies. Almost like a technical article, where we could add the "too technical" template, this article busies itself only with the minutae of each individual source. While I realize this might be the result of various edit wars, we can do better than this. As a general encyclopedia article, this article currently doesn't reach a good enough quality.

For but a single example of what I mean, let's look at what Catholic Culture writes:

What is the ultimate quest in the story of the grail but an unachievable mystical union? The journey may be approached only by those who have been purged, are celibate and show an obedience to the Lord.

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=982

I'm not saying this is right or wrong, or should have precedence over some other interpretation. Don't get stuck on this specific example, please! My point is instead that what this does, that the article does not, is looking to the overall picture. What does the Holy Grail and the quest for it mean; what does it signify in the general sense? From a cultural POV? How is this concept used linguistically? Mythically? And so on. In this case, the text explains that the quest for the Holy Grail is a metaphor for wanting something unattainable.

I suggest we add a general section to the article where we find sources that discuss the various historical sources: so our article can summarize and contrast these various works. I am sure such scholarly work must be quite abundant. Then we can rewrite our lede to use that info to provide a much more holistic overview.

CapnZapp (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Ultimately, no one knows what the true meaning was for the quest for the Holy Grail, because the original author of the tale (Chretien de Troyes) never finished it (likely because he - or his patron - died) and left no known record of what his intentions were. The best explanation of it that I have found (on this see: Helen J. Nicholson, Love, War, and the Grail, Brill, 2001, p. 112ff.) is that he was writing an allegory about the life and family of his patron Philip of Alsace, who was an important figure in the Crusades, and whose cousin, the leper Baldwin IV, king of Jersualem, resembles Chretien's wounded Fisher King (who is Perceval's cousin). According to this theory, the Grail castle is an allegory for Jerusalem and the quest itself is about Philip (in the role of Perceval) succeeding to the throne there (which utlimately never happened, as Philip took sick after the Siege of Acre (1189–91) and died). There is more to the theory that just these two points and I can recommend that those interested in this read Nicholson's book for a more detailed discussion of it. Cagwinn (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to read a book when I have Wikipedia right here :-) The point isn't to arrive at a definite answer, the point is that the article doesn't even discuss the question. Everything you say sounds like stuff the article would be better off by discussing. Not to mention all the other cultural aspects of the Grail and its quest. Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

archiving

I think the time has come to set up automated archiving of this talk page, and per policy I hereby inform y'all I will set it up in due time unless someone objects. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done CapnZapp (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't the 20th century German mythology be also mentioned?

Otto Rahn and Wewelsburg in particular. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Holy Chalice which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Avoiding a laundry list

I just removed mentions from works where the grail isn't the main focus of the work (ie, one episode, etc.) or works that aren't widely known. These can be mentioned in their respective articles. DonQuixote (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)