A D D E N D U M
We will add here a few words in answer to an objection that was made to our view of the relationship between the Holy Grail and the Sacred Heart, even though the reply already given at the time seems to us fully satisfactory. [14]
It is of little importance that Chrestien de Troyes and Robert de Boron did not see in the ancient legend (of which they were only the adapters) all the significance contained in it. This significance was really there, nevertheless, and we claim only to have made it explicit without introducing anything 'modern' whatsoever into our interpretation. It is quite difficult, moreover, to say exactly what the writers of the twelfth century saw or did not see in the legend; and given that they only played the part of mere 'transmitters', we readily agree that they did not see all that was seen by those who inspired them, that is, the real custodians of the traditional doctrine.
On the other hand, as regards the Celts, we were careful to recall the precautions that are necessary when one wishes to speak of them, given the absence of any written documents. But why should it be supposed, despite the contrary indications that are nevertheless available, that the Celts were less favoured than the other ancient peoples? We see everywhere, and not in Egypt alone, the symbolic assimilation established between the heart and the cup or vase. Everywhere the heart is looked on as the centre of the being, a centre that is both divine and human in the multiple applications to which this notion lends itself. Furthermore, the sacrificial cup everywhere represents
the Centre of the Heart of the World, the 'abode of immortality'. [15] What more is necessary? We are well aware that the cup and the lance, or their equivalents, have had yet other significations in addition to those we mentioned, but without dwelling any further on this, we can say that all these significations, no matter how strange some of them may appear to modern eyes, are in perfect agreement among themselves and that in reality they express applications of the same principle to diverse orders, according to a law of correspondence on which is founded the harmonious multiplicity of meanings which are included in all symbolism.
We hope to show in other studies not only that the Centre of the World is in fact to be identified with the Heart of Christ, but also that this identity was plainly indicated in ancient doctrines. Obviously, the expression 'Heart of Christ' must in this case be taken in a sense which is not precisely that which one would call 'historical'. But it must be said yet again that historical facts themselves, like all the rest, are 'translations', into their own particular 'language', of higher realities, and conform to the law of correspondence we have just alluded to, a law which alone makes possible the explanation of certain 'prefigurations'. It is a question, if one will, of the Christ-principle, that is, of the Word manifested at the central point of the Universe. But who would dare to maintain that the eternal Word and His historical, earthly and human manifestation are not really one and the same Christ under different aspects? We touch here on the relationships between the temporal and the timeless, and perhaps it is not appropriate to insist further on this; for these are precisely those things which symbolism alone can express in the measure that they are expressible. In any case, it is enough to know how to read the symbols in order to find in them all that we ourselves have found; but alas, in our age especially, not everyone knows how to read them.