ADDENDUM

We will add a few words here¹³ 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 Chrétien 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 nevertheless really there, and we claim only to have made it explicit without introducing anything ‘modern’ 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 ‘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 speaking of them in the absence of any written documents. But why should it be supposed, despite the contraindications that are nevertheless available, that the Celts were less favored than the other ancient peoples? We see everywhere, and not only in Egypt, the symbolic assimilation of the heart and the cup or vase. Everywhere the heart is considered to be the center of the being, a center that in the many aspects of this symbol is both divine and human. Furthermore, the sacrificial cup everywhere represents the Center or the Heart of the World, the ‘abode of immortality’.¹⁵ What more is required? We are well aware that the cup and the lance, or their equivalents, have had yet other meanings, in addition to those we mentioned, but without wishing to dwell any further on this point, we can say that all these meanings, no matter how strange some of them may appear to modern eyes, are in perfect agreement among themselves, and that they really express applications of the same principle to diverse orders according to a law of correspondence on which is founded the harmonious multiplicity of meanings included in all symbolism. We hope to show in other studies not only that the Center 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 that does not coincide precisely with that which could be called ‘historical’, but it must be said yet again that historical facts themselves, like all the rest, are ‘translations’ of higher realities into their own particular ‘language’ and conform to the law of correspondence we have just alluded to, a law that alone makes possible the explanation of certain ‘prefigurations’. It is a question, if you 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 Its historical, earthly, and human manifestation are not really one and the same Christ under different aspects? We touch here on the relationship between the temporal and the timeless, and perhaps it is not appropriate to dwell further on this, for these are precisely things that 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.