Payload Website Template

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

Footnotes

[13][Published in Regnabit, December 1925.]

[14][See Regnabit, October 1925, pp. 358 & 359. A correspondent had written to the journal: 'A very interesting study of M. Guénon on the Holy Grail and the Heart of Jesus. But cannot one level against his thesis an objection that would undermine it to the point of collapse? Chrestien de Troyes probably never thought of the Heart of Christ. In any case, the Celts of ancient Gaul certainly never thought of it. To see in the Holy Grail an emblem of the Heart of Christ is, therefore, a quite modern interpretation which may be ingenious, but which would have astonished our ancestors! Regnabit responded: 'Some day M. Guénon himself may be able to tell us what he thinks of the objection advanced against his thesis. We simply note that the complete 'nescience' of the Celts or of Chrestien de Troyes concerning the Heart of Jesus cannot 'undermine' the interpretation of the legend of the Holy Grail given us by M. Guénon. He does not assert that the Celts have seen in the mysterious Vase an emblem of the Heart of Christ. He shows that the Holy Grail—which the Celts knew, and the legend of which they passed on to us—is objectively an emblem of the living Heart which is the true cup and the true life. Now this second affirmation is independent of the first. That the Celts did not see such and such a meaning in the legend that nourished their thought does not prove that this meaning is absent. It simply proves that this meaning remains hidden, even to those who must have loved the admirable legend so much. Today, we all know that the phrase *full of grace* of the angelic salutation includes the grace of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Imagine that during long centuries an entire school of theology had not seen in the formula the meaning that we see today: this would not prove that the meaning is not there. It would prove simply that this school had not grasped the entire significance of the formula. It is a *fortiori* possible that one of the true meanings of a religious myth may not have been perceived even by those who piously conserved the legend'.]

ADDENDUM

Footnotes